Discussion:
Any pretext disabused...
Add Reply
islander
2018-10-05 22:00:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Any pretext that SCOTUS is above politics should now be seen as a
fundamental flaw in our belief of checks and balances.

Does anyone really still believe that there might be fewer 5-4 decisions
in SCOTUS on the side of right wing politics?
me
2018-10-05 22:31:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So this is news to you? Where have you been since FDR?
El Castor
2018-10-06 08:24:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Any pretext that SCOTUS is above politics should now be seen as a
fundamental flaw in our belief of checks and balances.
Does anyone really still believe that there might be fewer 5-4 decisions
in SCOTUS on the side of right wing politics?
The decisions will be more likely an honest interpretation of the
Constitution, as written, rather than an interpretation of the way
liberals (or now Socialists?) believe it should have been written. If
liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect more
senators, and select a better presidential candidate than crooked
Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-06 14:39:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Any pretext that SCOTUS is above politics should now be seen as a
fundamental flaw in our belief of checks and balances.
Does anyone really still believe that there might be fewer 5-4 decisions
in SCOTUS on the side of right wing politics?
The decisions will be more likely an honest interpretation of the
Constitution, as written, rather than an interpretation of the way
liberals (or now Socialists?) believe it should have been written.
The conservatives on the Court also interpret the Constitution they way
they believe it should have been written. Examples include invalidating
Obamacare, campaign finance laws, union dues, affirmative action and
anti-discrimination laws.

The Constitution is vague enough that all the justices can vote in
accordance with their desired political outcome while at the same time
claiming they are upholding the Constitution.
Post by El Castor
If
liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect more
senators, and select a better presidential candidate than crooked
Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Obama won and yet there was Garland.
me
2018-10-06 14:55:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If ‘the law’ is anything you want it to be you have anarchy.
http://www.endit.info/WhatConstitution.shtml
http://www.endit.info/Cracks.shtml
Gary
2018-10-06 16:20:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Any pretext that SCOTUS is above politics should now be seen as a
fundamental flaw in our belief of checks and balances.
Does anyone really still believe that there might be fewer 5-4 decisions
in SCOTUS on the side of right wing politics?
The decisions will be more likely an honest interpretation of the
Constitution, as written, rather than an interpretation of the way
liberals (or now Socialists?) believe it should have been written.
The conservatives on the Court also interpret the Constitution they way
they believe it should have been written. Examples include invalidating
Obamacare, campaign finance laws, union dues, affirmative action and
anti-discrimination laws.
The Constitution is vague enough that all the justices can vote in
accordance with their desired political outcome while at the same time
claiming they are upholding the Constitution.
Post by El Castor
If
liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect more
senators, and select a better presidential candidate than crooked
Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Obama won and yet there was Garland.
It seems to me that when times change -- and Congress lacks the courage to pass new laws
-- they call on the Supreme Court to make the laws for them. It has happened for 150+
years -- but it has become more obvious in our lifetimes. IMO, it began in 1954 --
when segregation laws were overturned due to the Court having discovered that the
Constitution -- written by the Founders -- contained some hidden instructions that all
black children must be allowed go to school with white children.

That decision would have upset their Court ancestors -- who in 1896 had decided
segregation was the normal way of life for white folks. ( Plessy v. Ferguson)

---------------------------------------------------------------
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court issued
in 1896. It upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation laws for public facilities
as long as the segregated facilities were equal in quality -- a doctrine that came to be
known as "separate but equal"
El Castor
2018-10-06 19:20:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Any pretext that SCOTUS is above politics should now be seen as a
fundamental flaw in our belief of checks and balances.
Does anyone really still believe that there might be fewer 5-4 decisions
in SCOTUS on the side of right wing politics?
The decisions will be more likely an honest interpretation of the
Constitution, as written, rather than an interpretation of the way
liberals (or now Socialists?) believe it should have been written.
The conservatives on the Court also interpret the Constitution they way
they believe it should have been written. Examples include invalidating
Obamacare, campaign finance laws, union dues, affirmative action and
anti-discrimination laws.
The Constitution is vague enough that all the justices can vote in
accordance with their desired political outcome while at the same time
claiming they are upholding the Constitution.
Post by El Castor
If
liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect more
senators, and select a better presidential candidate than crooked
Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Obama won and yet there was Garland.
Advise and "consent". Obama was (thankfully) only one element in the
equation -- an equation that was wisely devised by our founding
fathers.

The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide. As you know, I am very big on free speech.
If I lived in the UK there is no doubt that I would be arrested for
the things I've said here. Given a left wing White House and Senate,
the SC is perfectly capable of interpreting the First Amendment out of
existence -- which I believe is exactly what would happen. Thanks to
Trump, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will save me from that fate.
b flanier
2018-10-06 19:34:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
This is not an original thought of EC's and is widely held by
many observers of the peregrinations of this country's journey
toward a more perfect union.
Post by El Castor
As you know, I am very big on free speech. If I lived in the
UK there is no doubt that I would be arrested for
the things I've said here.
A little puffed-up self importance observation here, EC?
Islander will get a chuckle out of this I bet.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-10-06 20:02:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 12:34:47 -0700 (PDT), b flanier
Post by b flanier
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
This is not an original thought of EC's and is widely held by
many observers of the peregrinations of this country's journey
toward a more perfect union.
Post by El Castor
As you know, I am very big on free speech. If I lived in the
UK there is no doubt that I would be arrested for
the things I've said here.
A little puffed-up self importance observation here, EC?
Islander will get a chuckle out of this I bet.
I haven't lived in the UK since I was 5, but I very
much doubt that the UK is more apt to arrest people
for saying things off the beaten track than the USA
is. I remember once on a visit back to England as
a teenager, I was spouting off some socialist ideas
and my grandparents warned me to watch my
mouth in the USA, because I wasn't in England
anymore.
El Castor
2018-10-07 03:03:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 12:34:47 -0700 (PDT), b flanier
Post by b flanier
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
This is not an original thought of EC's and is widely held by
many observers of the peregrinations of this country's journey
toward a more perfect union.
Post by El Castor
As you know, I am very big on free speech. If I lived in the
UK there is no doubt that I would be arrested for
the things I've said here.
A little puffed-up self importance observation here, EC?
Islander will get a chuckle out of this I bet.
I haven't lived in the UK since I was 5, but I very
much doubt that the UK is more apt to arrest people
for saying things off the beaten track than the USA
is. I remember once on a visit back to England as
a teenager, I was spouting off some socialist ideas
and my grandparents warned me to watch my
mouth in the USA, because I wasn't in England
anymore.
"Nine people a day are being arrested for posting allegedly offensive
messages online as police step up their campaign to combat social
media hate speech."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-people-a-day-in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d

"According to the Register, a total of 2,500 Londoners have been
arrested over the past five years for allegedly sending “offensive”
messages via social media. In 2015, 857 people were detained, up 37
per cent increase since 2010."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html

"A candidate in the European elections has been arrested after making
a speech quoting from a book by Winston Churchill about Islam."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10792895/Election-candidate-arrested-over-Churchill-speech.html

Get the picture?
w***@gmail.com
2018-10-07 21:37:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 12:34:47 -0700 (PDT), b flanier
Post by b flanier
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
This is not an original thought of EC's and is widely held by
many observers of the peregrinations of this country's journey
toward a more perfect union.
Post by El Castor
As you know, I am very big on free speech. If I lived in the
UK there is no doubt that I would be arrested for
the things I've said here.
A little puffed-up self importance observation here, EC?
Islander will get a chuckle out of this I bet.
I haven't lived in the UK since I was 5, but I very
much doubt that the UK is more apt to arrest people
for saying things off the beaten track than the USA
is. I remember once on a visit back to England as
a teenager, I was spouting off some socialist ideas
and my grandparents warned me to watch my
mouth in the USA, because I wasn't in England
anymore.
I found the speakers corner Hyde park very interesting!
rumpelstiltskin
2018-10-08 00:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 12:34:47 -0700 (PDT), b flanier
Post by b flanier
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
This is not an original thought of EC's and is widely held by
many observers of the peregrinations of this country's journey
toward a more perfect union.
Post by El Castor
As you know, I am very big on free speech. If I lived in the
UK there is no doubt that I would be arrested for
the things I've said here.
A little puffed-up self importance observation here, EC?
Islander will get a chuckle out of this I bet.
I haven't lived in the UK since I was 5, but I very
much doubt that the UK is more apt to arrest people
for saying things off the beaten track than the USA
is. I remember once on a visit back to England as
a teenager, I was spouting off some socialist ideas
and my grandparents warned me to watch my
mouth in the USA, because I wasn't in England
anymore.
I found the speakers corner Hyde park very interesting!
It's legendary, and it was great the last time I
saw it though that was in 1972.
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-07 02:54:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b flanier
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
This is not an original thought of EC's and is widely held by
many observers of the peregrinations of this country's journey
toward a more perfect union.
Post by El Castor
As you know, I am very big on free speech. If I lived in the
UK there is no doubt that I would be arrested for
the things I've said here.
A little puffed-up self importance observation here, EC?
Islander will get a chuckle out of this I bet.
You are using words I can't comprehend. What is the meaning of 'peregrinations'? An while you are at it, what is difference of a Hippo and a Zippo? One is a 3000 pound animal and the other is lighter.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-06 23:34:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Any pretext that SCOTUS is above politics should now be seen as a
fundamental flaw in our belief of checks and balances.
Does anyone really still believe that there might be fewer 5-4 decisions
in SCOTUS on the side of right wing politics?
The decisions will be more likely an honest interpretation of the
Constitution, as written, rather than an interpretation of the way
liberals (or now Socialists?) believe it should have been written.
The conservatives on the Court also interpret the Constitution they way
they believe it should have been written. Examples include invalidating
Obamacare, campaign finance laws, union dues, affirmative action and
anti-discrimination laws.
The Constitution is vague enough that all the justices can vote in
accordance with their desired political outcome while at the same time
claiming they are upholding the Constitution.
Post by El Castor
If
liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect more
senators, and select a better presidential candidate than crooked
Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Obama won and yet there was Garland.
Advise and "consent". Obama was (thankfully) only one element in the
equation -- an equation that was wisely devised by our founding
fathers.
I don't think the founders intended that a nominee be categorically
denied an up and down vote just because the party in control of the
Senate differs from the President's party.
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
That doesn't sound right at all. SCOTUS is actively, on both the left
and right, invalidating legislation.
El Castor
2018-10-07 03:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Any pretext that SCOTUS is above politics should now be seen as a
fundamental flaw in our belief of checks and balances.
Does anyone really still believe that there might be fewer 5-4 decisions
in SCOTUS on the side of right wing politics?
The decisions will be more likely an honest interpretation of the
Constitution, as written, rather than an interpretation of the way
liberals (or now Socialists?) believe it should have been written.
The conservatives on the Court also interpret the Constitution they way
they believe it should have been written. Examples include invalidating
Obamacare, campaign finance laws, union dues, affirmative action and
anti-discrimination laws.
The Constitution is vague enough that all the justices can vote in
accordance with their desired political outcome while at the same time
claiming they are upholding the Constitution.
Post by El Castor
If
liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect more
senators, and select a better presidential candidate than crooked
Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Obama won and yet there was Garland.
Advise and "consent". Obama was (thankfully) only one element in the
equation -- an equation that was wisely devised by our founding
fathers.
I don't think the founders intended that a nominee be categorically
denied an up and down vote just because the party in control of the
Senate differs from the President's party.
So, amend the Constitution -- or with the "correct" justices in power,
I suppose Democrats would discover that the Constitution requires an
up or down vote.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
That doesn't sound right at all. SCOTUS is actively, on both the left
and right, invalidating legislation.
I'm not endorsing that view, just stating a fact.

"The Supreme Court As A Legislature"
Cornell Law Review
Geoffrey C Hazard Jr.
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3287&context=fss_papers

"How the Supreme Court has come to play a policymaking role"
"Two landmark decisions that are part of our everyday politics
illustrate the lack of real judicial modesty and demonstrate how the
court has come to play a policymaking role that is supposed to be
reserved for elected officials. The cases are Roe v. Wade and Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission."
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/11/how-supreme-court-has-come-play-policymaking-role/
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-07 05:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Any pretext that SCOTUS is above politics should now be seen as a
fundamental flaw in our belief of checks and balances.
Does anyone really still believe that there might be fewer 5-4 decisions
in SCOTUS on the side of right wing politics?
The decisions will be more likely an honest interpretation of the
Constitution, as written, rather than an interpretation of the way
liberals (or now Socialists?) believe it should have been written.
The conservatives on the Court also interpret the Constitution they way
they believe it should have been written. Examples include invalidating
Obamacare, campaign finance laws, union dues, affirmative action and
anti-discrimination laws.
The Constitution is vague enough that all the justices can vote in
accordance with their desired political outcome while at the same time
claiming they are upholding the Constitution.
Post by El Castor
If
liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect more
senators, and select a better presidential candidate than crooked
Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Obama won and yet there was Garland.
Advise and "consent". Obama was (thankfully) only one element in the
equation -- an equation that was wisely devised by our founding
fathers.
I don't think the founders intended that a nominee be categorically
denied an up and down vote just because the party in control of the
Senate differs from the President's party.
So, amend the Constitution -- or with the "correct" justices in power,
I suppose Democrats would discover that the Constitution requires an
up or down vote.
Amend the Constitution? What are you talking about?
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
That doesn't sound right at all. SCOTUS is actively, on both the left
and right, invalidating legislation.
I'm not endorsing that view, just stating a fact.
"The Supreme Court As A Legislature"
Cornell Law Review
Geoffrey C Hazard Jr.
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3287&context=fss_papers
I didn't argue that the Court wasn't in a sense acting like a
legislature. I was arguing you are wrong that it does so because
politicians are chicken hearted.
Post by El Castor
"How the Supreme Court has come to play a policymaking role"
"Two landmark decisions that are part of our everyday politics
illustrate the lack of real judicial modesty and demonstrate how the
court has come to play a policymaking role that is supposed to be
reserved for elected officials. The cases are Roe v. Wade and Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission."
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/11/how-supreme-court-has-come-play-policymaking-role/
Exactly! It comes from the left (Roe) and the right (Citizens United)
in response to politicians who passed tough laws (i.e., they weren't
chicken hearted).
El Castor
2018-10-07 08:53:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Any pretext that SCOTUS is above politics should now be seen as a
fundamental flaw in our belief of checks and balances.
Does anyone really still believe that there might be fewer 5-4 decisions
in SCOTUS on the side of right wing politics?
The decisions will be more likely an honest interpretation of the
Constitution, as written, rather than an interpretation of the way
liberals (or now Socialists?) believe it should have been written.
The conservatives on the Court also interpret the Constitution they way
they believe it should have been written. Examples include invalidating
Obamacare, campaign finance laws, union dues, affirmative action and
anti-discrimination laws.
The Constitution is vague enough that all the justices can vote in
accordance with their desired political outcome while at the same time
claiming they are upholding the Constitution.
Post by El Castor
If
liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect more
senators, and select a better presidential candidate than crooked
Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Obama won and yet there was Garland.
Advise and "consent". Obama was (thankfully) only one element in the
equation -- an equation that was wisely devised by our founding
fathers.
I don't think the founders intended that a nominee be categorically
denied an up and down vote just because the party in control of the
Senate differs from the President's party.
So, amend the Constitution -- or with the "correct" justices in power,
I suppose Democrats would discover that the Constitution requires an
up or down vote.
Amend the Constitution? What are you talking about?
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
That doesn't sound right at all. SCOTUS is actively, on both the left
and right, invalidating legislation.
I'm not endorsing that view, just stating a fact.
"The Supreme Court As A Legislature"
Cornell Law Review
Geoffrey C Hazard Jr.
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3287&context=fss_papers
I didn't argue that the Court wasn't in a sense acting like a
legislature. I was arguing you are wrong that it does so because
politicians are chicken hearted.
Of course they are chicken hearted, or at least many are. They live in
mortal fear of supporting or opposing something that might cause them
to piss off constituents and lose the next election. When the going
gets tough -- hands off and let the court take the heat, and the court
finds itself making quasi legislative decisions.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
"How the Supreme Court has come to play a policymaking role"
"Two landmark decisions that are part of our everyday politics
illustrate the lack of real judicial modesty and demonstrate how the
court has come to play a policymaking role that is supposed to be
reserved for elected officials. The cases are Roe v. Wade and Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission."
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/11/how-supreme-court-has-come-play-policymaking-role/
Exactly! It comes from the left (Roe) and the right (Citizens United)
in response to politicians who passed tough laws (i.e., they weren't
chicken hearted).
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-07 15:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If
liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect more
senators, and select a better presidential candidate than crooked
Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Obama won and yet there was Garland.
Advise and "consent". Obama was (thankfully) only one element in the
equation -- an equation that was wisely devised by our founding
fathers.
I don't think the founders intended that a nominee be categorically
denied an up and down vote just because the party in control of the
Senate differs from the President's party.
So, amend the Constitution -- or with the "correct" justices in power,
I suppose Democrats would discover that the Constitution requires an
up or down vote.
Amend the Constitution? What are you talking about?
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
That doesn't sound right at all. SCOTUS is actively, on both the left
and right, invalidating legislation.
I'm not endorsing that view, just stating a fact.
"The Supreme Court As A Legislature"
Cornell Law Review
Geoffrey C Hazard Jr.
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3287&context=fss_papers
I didn't argue that the Court wasn't in a sense acting like a
legislature. I was arguing you are wrong that it does so because
politicians are chicken hearted.
Of course they are chicken hearted, or at least many are. They live in
mortal fear of supporting or opposing something that might cause them
to piss off constituents and lose the next election. When the going
gets tough -- hands off and let the court take the heat, and the court
finds itself making quasi legislative decisions.
Please give some examples. And note that Roe and Citizens United are
example of the exact opposite when politicians openly supported
positions that the Court invalidated.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
"How the Supreme Court has come to play a policymaking role"
"Two landmark decisions that are part of our everyday politics
illustrate the lack of real judicial modesty and demonstrate how the
court has come to play a policymaking role that is supposed to be
reserved for elected officials. The cases are Roe v. Wade and Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission."
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/11/how-supreme-court-has-come-play-policymaking-role/
Exactly! It comes from the left (Roe) and the right (Citizens United)
in response to politicians who passed tough laws (i.e., they weren't
chicken hearted).
El Castor
2018-10-07 21:05:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If
liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect more
senators, and select a better presidential candidate than crooked
Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Obama won and yet there was Garland.
Advise and "consent". Obama was (thankfully) only one element in the
equation -- an equation that was wisely devised by our founding
fathers.
I don't think the founders intended that a nominee be categorically
denied an up and down vote just because the party in control of the
Senate differs from the President's party.
So, amend the Constitution -- or with the "correct" justices in power,
I suppose Democrats would discover that the Constitution requires an
up or down vote.
Amend the Constitution? What are you talking about?
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
That doesn't sound right at all. SCOTUS is actively, on both the left
and right, invalidating legislation.
I'm not endorsing that view, just stating a fact.
"The Supreme Court As A Legislature"
Cornell Law Review
Geoffrey C Hazard Jr.
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3287&context=fss_papers
I didn't argue that the Court wasn't in a sense acting like a
legislature. I was arguing you are wrong that it does so because
politicians are chicken hearted.
Of course they are chicken hearted, or at least many are. They live in
mortal fear of supporting or opposing something that might cause them
to piss off constituents and lose the next election. When the going
gets tough -- hands off and let the court take the heat, and the court
finds itself making quasi legislative decisions.
Please give some examples. And note that Roe and Citizens United are
example of the exact opposite when politicians openly supported
positions that the Court invalidated.
Immigration comes to mind ...

"Kirstjen Nielsen Challenges ‘Cowardly’ Congress for Failure on
Immigration Laws"
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/18/dhs-secretary-kirstjen-nielsen-challenges-cowardly-congress-for-failure-on-immigration-laws/

"Dreamers deferred as Congress lets DACA deadline pass"
"Now, as Congress and the Dreamers await a resolution in the courts,
lawmakers have paused their legislative efforts and some 700,000 DACA
recipients have been plunged into a constant state of uncertainty."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dreamers-deferred-congress-lets-daca-deadline-pass/story?id=53464924

"A short-handed Supreme Court deadlocked on one of the most pressing
national issues, once again highlighting the failure of Congress to do
its job.The 4-4 tie on the legality of President Obama’s executive
action on immigration leaves millions of undocumented parents of U.S.
citizen or legal resident children in limbo."
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/06/23/supreme-court-immigration/86294170/

"The federal courts have stalled President Obama's deferred action
programs. Congress refuses to provide a path to U.S. citizenship."
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/undocumenteds-lesser-known-paths-legal-status-article-1.2242882
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
"How the Supreme Court has come to play a policymaking role"
"Two landmark decisions that are part of our everyday politics
illustrate the lack of real judicial modesty and demonstrate how the
court has come to play a policymaking role that is supposed to be
reserved for elected officials. The cases are Roe v. Wade and Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission."
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/11/how-supreme-court-has-come-play-policymaking-role/
Exactly! It comes from the left (Roe) and the right (Citizens United)
in response to politicians who passed tough laws (i.e., they weren't
chicken hearted).
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-08 00:31:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If
liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect more
senators, and select a better presidential candidate than crooked
Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Obama won and yet there was Garland.
Advise and "consent". Obama was (thankfully) only one element in the
equation -- an equation that was wisely devised by our founding
fathers.
I don't think the founders intended that a nominee be categorically
denied an up and down vote just because the party in control of the
Senate differs from the President's party.
So, amend the Constitution -- or with the "correct" justices in power,
I suppose Democrats would discover that the Constitution requires an
up or down vote.
Amend the Constitution? What are you talking about?
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
That doesn't sound right at all. SCOTUS is actively, on both the left
and right, invalidating legislation.
I'm not endorsing that view, just stating a fact.
"The Supreme Court As A Legislature"
Cornell Law Review
Geoffrey C Hazard Jr.
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3287&context=fss_papers
I didn't argue that the Court wasn't in a sense acting like a
legislature. I was arguing you are wrong that it does so because
politicians are chicken hearted.
Of course they are chicken hearted, or at least many are. They live in
mortal fear of supporting or opposing something that might cause them
to piss off constituents and lose the next election. When the going
gets tough -- hands off and let the court take the heat, and the court
finds itself making quasi legislative decisions.
Please give some examples. And note that Roe and Citizens United are
example of the exact opposite when politicians openly supported
positions that the Court invalidated.
Immigration comes to mind ...
"Kirstjen Nielsen Challenges ‘Cowardly’ Congress for Failure on
Immigration Laws"
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/18/dhs-secretary-kirstjen-nielsen-challenges-cowardly-congress-for-failure-on-immigration-laws/
"Dreamers deferred as Congress lets DACA deadline pass"
"Now, as Congress and the Dreamers await a resolution in the courts,
lawmakers have paused their legislative efforts and some 700,000 DACA
recipients have been plunged into a constant state of uncertainty."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dreamers-deferred-congress-lets-daca-deadline-pass/story?id=53464924
"A short-handed Supreme Court deadlocked on one of the most pressing
national issues, once again highlighting the failure of Congress to do
its job.The 4-4 tie on the legality of President Obama’s executive
action on immigration leaves millions of undocumented parents of U.S.
citizen or legal resident children in limbo."
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/06/23/supreme-court-immigration/86294170/
"The federal courts have stalled President Obama's deferred action
programs. Congress refuses to provide a path to U.S. citizenship."
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/undocumenteds-lesser-known-paths-legal-status-article-1.2242882
Congress is being chicken hearted, the President is not. You got
anything when both Congress an the President is being chicken hearted,
and the Courts made law on their own?
El Castor
2018-10-08 06:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If
liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect more
senators, and select a better presidential candidate than crooked
Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Obama won and yet there was Garland.
Advise and "consent". Obama was (thankfully) only one element in the
equation -- an equation that was wisely devised by our founding
fathers.
I don't think the founders intended that a nominee be categorically
denied an up and down vote just because the party in control of the
Senate differs from the President's party.
So, amend the Constitution -- or with the "correct" justices in power,
I suppose Democrats would discover that the Constitution requires an
up or down vote.
Amend the Constitution? What are you talking about?
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority. What I find unacceptable was the
disgusting smear campaign that Democrats stooped to with Kavanaugh.
BTW, I would find a smear based impeachment campaign to be equally
outrageous. If Democrats gain control of congress, I suppose that will
be next.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
That doesn't sound right at all. SCOTUS is actively, on both the left
and right, invalidating legislation.
I'm not endorsing that view, just stating a fact.
"The Supreme Court As A Legislature"
Cornell Law Review
Geoffrey C Hazard Jr.
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3287&context=fss_papers
I didn't argue that the Court wasn't in a sense acting like a
legislature. I was arguing you are wrong that it does so because
politicians are chicken hearted.
Of course they are chicken hearted, or at least many are. They live in
mortal fear of supporting or opposing something that might cause them
to piss off constituents and lose the next election. When the going
gets tough -- hands off and let the court take the heat, and the court
finds itself making quasi legislative decisions.
Please give some examples. And note that Roe and Citizens United are
example of the exact opposite when politicians openly supported
positions that the Court invalidated.
Immigration comes to mind ...
"Kirstjen Nielsen Challenges ‘Cowardly’ Congress for Failure on
Immigration Laws"
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/18/dhs-secretary-kirstjen-nielsen-challenges-cowardly-congress-for-failure-on-immigration-laws/
"Dreamers deferred as Congress lets DACA deadline pass"
"Now, as Congress and the Dreamers await a resolution in the courts,
lawmakers have paused their legislative efforts and some 700,000 DACA
recipients have been plunged into a constant state of uncertainty."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dreamers-deferred-congress-lets-daca-deadline-pass/story?id=53464924
"A short-handed Supreme Court deadlocked on one of the most pressing
national issues, once again highlighting the failure of Congress to do
its job.The 4-4 tie on the legality of President Obama’s executive
action on immigration leaves millions of undocumented parents of U.S.
citizen or legal resident children in limbo."
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/06/23/supreme-court-immigration/86294170/
"The federal courts have stalled President Obama's deferred action
programs. Congress refuses to provide a path to U.S. citizenship."
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/undocumenteds-lesser-known-paths-legal-status-article-1.2242882
Congress is being chicken hearted, the President is not. You got
anything when both Congress an the President is being chicken hearted,
and the Courts made law on their own?
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-08 14:58:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
El Castor
2018-10-08 19:30:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-08 19:59:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.

Perhaps conservatives have been energized.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
El Castor
2018-10-08 20:38:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
islander
2018-10-08 21:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.

This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.

The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.

Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?

Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-08 21:27:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 10/8/2018 2:10 PM, islander wrote:

{snip}
Post by islander
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view?  What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
As much as I dislike Alan Dershowitz, he made a good contribution to
this debate:

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/What-if-Kavanaugh-were-a-liberal-Muslim-accused-of-terrorism-568696
rumpelstiltskin
2018-10-09 00:20:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view?  What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
As much as I dislike Alan Dershowitz, he made a good contribution to
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/What-if-Kavanaugh-were-a-liberal-Muslim-accused-of-terrorism-568696
"Liberal Muslim" sounds like a contradiction in terms
to me, although there might be some in the USA
because some of those are not REAL Muslims.
There might even be some among the young in
Muslim countries - and I hope there are - though at
present they're completely submerged under the
Middle-Ages mindset. Islam is 600 years younger
than Christianity: maybe it will be 600 years before
people see through it the way people in
Christendom are finally starting to see through
Christianity.
islander
2018-10-09 00:47:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats
were faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women"
issue. What should they have done, in your view?  What do you think
the Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
As much as I dislike Alan Dershowitz, he made a good contribution to
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/What-if-Kavanaugh-were-a-liberal-Muslim-accused-of-terrorism-568696
That is pretty close to Rawl's Veil of Ignorance.
https://fs.blog/2017/10/veil-ignorance/

Fairness is difficult to achieve. I'm reminded of the procedures used
for auditions for our local symphony. The candidate not only performs
behind a screen, they found that candidates needed to be required to
remove their shoes so that those judging the audition could not tell
from the high heels if it was a woman!
El Castor
2018-10-09 07:57:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
islander
2018-10-09 14:22:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
b flanier
2018-10-09 16:11:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
While I don't know if the charges against BK were true or not, I must
agree with Islander that his performance disqualified him as a judge.
El Castor
2018-10-09 19:35:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.

I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-09 21:58:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
What's wrong with the Portland police? Why don't they just bust the antifascists and put them in jail? Can't they keep any order up there? I'd like to see them try their tricks down here in Orange County. Mickey Mouse would put them on the next bus out of town.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-10-10 00:08:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
What's wrong with the Portland police? Why don't they just bust the antifascists and put them in jail? Can't they keep any order up there? I'd like to see them try their tricks down here in Orange County. Mickey Mouse would put them on the next bus out of town.
Well there's another reason, if I needed one more (which I don't),
why I wouldn't want to live in Orange County. I suppose people in
Orange County don't want to live in Northern California either, and
that sounds like a good plan for them, so everybody's happy.
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-11 21:05:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
What's wrong with the Portland police? Why don't they just bust the antifascists and put them in jail? Can't they keep any order up there? I'd like to see them try their tricks down here in Orange County. Mickey Mouse would put them on the next bus out of town.
Well there's another reason, if I needed one more (which I don't),
why I wouldn't want to live in Orange County. I suppose people in
Orange County don't want to live in Northern California either, and
that sounds like a good plan for them, so everybody's happy.
Well, I'd like to live in San Francisco if I could get a cheap rent controlled apartment. But I have a storage shed with lots of junk that I need to put n the back yard.It's 8X6 so it shouldn't take up too much room. I also need a sunny place to grow my tomato plants and a bamboo tree. Right now, I'm trying to grow some tangerine trees from seeds. They are already a couple inches high. Last week I sold a couple of them for a dollar. Saturday I hope to sell a couple more.
w***@gmail.com
2018-10-10 01:23:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing.
She sat on it because Ford wanted that!


She did it because
Post by El Castor
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
Last I heard Kavanaugh got 5.5 million for his defense versus 2 million to such as Ford!
Post by El Castor
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
islander
2018-10-10 15:01:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
It sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. Who would you have
blamed if Feinstein violated Ford's confidence?

As to Portland, it is a symptom of the increasing political division
that has been and is being made worse by Trump. Now the claim seems to
be looking for any reason to blame Democrats for mob rule. This is
becoming a tinder box that any spark can ignite. In the case of
Portland, this was a peaceful demonstration of yet another police
shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons. Was the shooting justified?
Who knows? The demonstrators were attempting to direct traffic around
the demonstration. Did they overreact when a couple of drivers
objected? Yes. We are fortunate that the situation did not degenerate
into something more serious.

Too much anger. Too many guns. What we need is someone to calm things
down and Trump is doing exactly the opposite in the desperate attempt to
mobilize Republican voters. This is not good for anyone.
El Castor
2018-10-10 21:56:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
It sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. Who would you have
blamed if Feinstein violated Ford's confidence?
Of course she violated her confidence, and did it immediately. Who
hired the lawyer (and paid him), and how about that lie detector test?
The lawyer, gofundme, etc was a way to anonymously fund the prep work,
but not to get at the truth, just preparation to impale Kavanaugh.
Well, you better learn to like Kavanaugh. He will be with us for a
very long time. (-8
Post by islander
As to Portland, it is a symptom of the increasing political division
that has been and is being made worse by Trump. Now the claim seems to
be looking for any reason to blame Democrats for mob rule. This is
becoming a tinder box that any spark can ignite. In the case of
Portland, this was a peaceful demonstration of yet another police
shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons. Was the shooting justified?
Who knows? The demonstrators were attempting to direct traffic around
the demonstration. Did they overreact when a couple of drivers
objected? Yes. We are fortunate that the situation did not degenerate
into something more serious.
Too much anger. Too many guns. What we need is someone to calm things
down and Trump is doing exactly the opposite in the desperate attempt to
mobilize Republican voters. This is not good for anyone.
You make a good apologist, but where were you when they did $100K
damage to UC Berkeley? Democrats should be demanding that Antifa cut
it out, and all they do is nod in approval.
islander
2018-10-10 22:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
It sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. Who would you have
blamed if Feinstein violated Ford's confidence?
Of course she violated her confidence, and did it immediately. Who
hired the lawyer (and paid him), and how about that lie detector test?
The lawyer, gofundme, etc was a way to anonymously fund the prep work,
but not to get at the truth, just preparation to impale Kavanaugh.
Well, you better learn to like Kavanaugh. He will be with us for a
very long time. (-8
Post by islander
As to Portland, it is a symptom of the increasing political division
that has been and is being made worse by Trump. Now the claim seems to
be looking for any reason to blame Democrats for mob rule. This is
becoming a tinder box that any spark can ignite. In the case of
Portland, this was a peaceful demonstration of yet another police
shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons. Was the shooting justified?
Who knows? The demonstrators were attempting to direct traffic around
the demonstration. Did they overreact when a couple of drivers
objected? Yes. We are fortunate that the situation did not degenerate
into something more serious.
Too much anger. Too many guns. What we need is someone to calm things
down and Trump is doing exactly the opposite in the desperate attempt to
mobilize Republican voters. This is not good for anyone.
You make a good apologist, but where were you when they did $100K
damage to UC Berkeley? Democrats should be demanding that Antifa cut
it out, and all they do is nod in approval.
No one on the Democratic side is advocating or approving violence. On
the Republican side, well, there is Trump who is constantly stirring the
pot. And, the right wing media is busy pumping the myth that the
Democrats advocate "mob" rule. Not happening!
El Castor
2018-10-11 07:32:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
It sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. Who would you have
blamed if Feinstein violated Ford's confidence?
Of course she violated her confidence, and did it immediately. Who
hired the lawyer (and paid him), and how about that lie detector test?
The lawyer, gofundme, etc was a way to anonymously fund the prep work,
but not to get at the truth, just preparation to impale Kavanaugh.
Well, you better learn to like Kavanaugh. He will be with us for a
very long time. (-8
Post by islander
As to Portland, it is a symptom of the increasing political division
that has been and is being made worse by Trump. Now the claim seems to
be looking for any reason to blame Democrats for mob rule. This is
becoming a tinder box that any spark can ignite. In the case of
Portland, this was a peaceful demonstration of yet another police
shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons. Was the shooting justified?
Who knows? The demonstrators were attempting to direct traffic around
the demonstration. Did they overreact when a couple of drivers
objected? Yes. We are fortunate that the situation did not degenerate
into something more serious.
Too much anger. Too many guns. What we need is someone to calm things
down and Trump is doing exactly the opposite in the desperate attempt to
mobilize Republican voters. This is not good for anyone.
You make a good apologist, but where were you when they did $100K
damage to UC Berkeley? Democrats should be demanding that Antifa cut
it out, and all they do is nod in approval.
No one on the Democratic side is advocating or approving violence. On
the Republican side, well, there is Trump who is constantly stirring the
pot. And, the right wing media is busy pumping the myth that the
Democrats advocate "mob" rule. Not happening!
Sorry, but the threats and hysterical screaming (paid?) protestors are
almost entirely of the Left. My side of the aisle refers to it as
Trump Derangement Syndrome. Certainly looks like would be mob rule to
me. If not, please tell me what a conservative has to do to be allowed
to speak at UC Berkeley.

What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
islander
2018-10-11 14:29:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
It sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. Who would you have
blamed if Feinstein violated Ford's confidence?
Of course she violated her confidence, and did it immediately. Who
hired the lawyer (and paid him), and how about that lie detector test?
The lawyer, gofundme, etc was a way to anonymously fund the prep work,
but not to get at the truth, just preparation to impale Kavanaugh.
Well, you better learn to like Kavanaugh. He will be with us for a
very long time. (-8
Post by islander
As to Portland, it is a symptom of the increasing political division
that has been and is being made worse by Trump. Now the claim seems to
be looking for any reason to blame Democrats for mob rule. This is
becoming a tinder box that any spark can ignite. In the case of
Portland, this was a peaceful demonstration of yet another police
shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons. Was the shooting justified?
Who knows? The demonstrators were attempting to direct traffic around
the demonstration. Did they overreact when a couple of drivers
objected? Yes. We are fortunate that the situation did not degenerate
into something more serious.
Too much anger. Too many guns. What we need is someone to calm things
down and Trump is doing exactly the opposite in the desperate attempt to
mobilize Republican voters. This is not good for anyone.
You make a good apologist, but where were you when they did $100K
damage to UC Berkeley? Democrats should be demanding that Antifa cut
it out, and all they do is nod in approval.
No one on the Democratic side is advocating or approving violence. On
the Republican side, well, there is Trump who is constantly stirring the
pot. And, the right wing media is busy pumping the myth that the
Democrats advocate "mob" rule. Not happening!
Sorry, but the threats and hysterical screaming (paid?) protestors are
almost entirely of the Left. My side of the aisle refers to it as
Trump Derangement Syndrome. Certainly looks like would be mob rule to
me. If not, please tell me what a conservative has to do to be allowed
to speak at UC Berkeley.
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.

More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
El Castor
2018-10-11 19:57:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
It sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. Who would you have
blamed if Feinstein violated Ford's confidence?
Of course she violated her confidence, and did it immediately. Who
hired the lawyer (and paid him), and how about that lie detector test?
The lawyer, gofundme, etc was a way to anonymously fund the prep work,
but not to get at the truth, just preparation to impale Kavanaugh.
Well, you better learn to like Kavanaugh. He will be with us for a
very long time. (-8
Post by islander
As to Portland, it is a symptom of the increasing political division
that has been and is being made worse by Trump. Now the claim seems to
be looking for any reason to blame Democrats for mob rule. This is
becoming a tinder box that any spark can ignite. In the case of
Portland, this was a peaceful demonstration of yet another police
shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons. Was the shooting justified?
Who knows? The demonstrators were attempting to direct traffic around
the demonstration. Did they overreact when a couple of drivers
objected? Yes. We are fortunate that the situation did not degenerate
into something more serious.
Too much anger. Too many guns. What we need is someone to calm things
down and Trump is doing exactly the opposite in the desperate attempt to
mobilize Republican voters. This is not good for anyone.
You make a good apologist, but where were you when they did $100K
damage to UC Berkeley? Democrats should be demanding that Antifa cut
it out, and all they do is nod in approval.
No one on the Democratic side is advocating or approving violence. On
the Republican side, well, there is Trump who is constantly stirring the
pot. And, the right wing media is busy pumping the myth that the
Democrats advocate "mob" rule. Not happening!
Sorry, but the threats and hysterical screaming (paid?) protestors are
almost entirely of the Left. My side of the aisle refers to it as
Trump Derangement Syndrome. Certainly looks like would be mob rule to
me. If not, please tell me what a conservative has to do to be allowed
to speak at UC Berkeley.
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.

Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...

"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy

"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/

"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/

Etc.

Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
Loading Image...
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-11 20:38:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
Yes, but Amazon eliminated stock options and other goodies so the employees are actually making less than before. But Amazon got hit hard this week and last. It's now down 16% from the all time high of 2050. I lost $330.
Post by El Castor
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
El Castor
2018-10-12 05:34:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
Yes, but Amazon eliminated stock options and other goodies so the employees are actually making less than before. But Amazon got hit hard this week and last. It's now down 16% from the all time high of 2050. I lost $330.
On a related issue -- I love Amazon, but its success presents a
problem. Sears, JC Penny, Barnes & Noble, and a slew of others, are
all teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Many more are long gone. No
one wants to stop the Internet, but Amazon is becoming the Standard
Oil of retail, and is moving into the grocery business, streaming
entertainment, and God knows what else. Standard Oil, and several
other monopolies, were broken up by the Sherman Antitrust Act. If I
was an Amazon investor it would be something to think about.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
islander
2018-10-12 14:35:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
Yes, but Amazon eliminated stock options and other goodies so the employees are actually making less than before. But Amazon got hit hard this week and last. It's now down 16% from the all time high of 2050. I lost $330.
On a related issue -- I love Amazon, but its success presents a
problem. Sears, JC Penny, Barnes & Noble, and a slew of others, are
all teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Many more are long gone. No
one wants to stop the Internet, but Amazon is becoming the Standard
Oil of retail, and is moving into the grocery business, streaming
entertainment, and God knows what else. Standard Oil, and several
other monopolies, were broken up by the Sherman Antitrust Act. If I
was an Amazon investor it would be something to think about.
I've noticed that more companies are now offering free shipping,
something that you pay for as a Premier member of Amazon. This is a
whole new terrain for competition. Creative destruction?
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
rumpelstiltskin
2018-10-12 15:06:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
Yes, but Amazon eliminated stock options and other goodies so the employees are actually making less than before. But Amazon got hit hard this week and last. It's now down 16% from the all time high of 2050. I lost $330.
On a related issue -- I love Amazon, but its success presents a
problem. Sears, JC Penny, Barnes & Noble, and a slew of others, are
all teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Many more are long gone. No
one wants to stop the Internet, but Amazon is becoming the Standard
Oil of retail, and is moving into the grocery business, streaming
entertainment, and God knows what else. Standard Oil, and several
other monopolies, were broken up by the Sherman Antitrust Act. If I
was an Amazon investor it would be something to think about.
I've noticed that more companies are now offering free shipping,
something that you pay for as a Premier member of Amazon. This is a
whole new terrain for competition. Creative destruction?
At Amazon, on many items, I get free shipping if the total
price (not counting tax) of "eligible" items is $35 or more.
(It might be more $ now, since it's been a while since I
bought anything from Amazon.) That's without being a
"prime" member.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
islander
2018-10-12 15:45:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
Yes, but Amazon eliminated stock options and other goodies so the employees are actually making less than before. But Amazon got hit hard this week and last. It's now down 16% from the all time high of 2050. I lost $330.
On a related issue -- I love Amazon, but its success presents a
problem. Sears, JC Penny, Barnes & Noble, and a slew of others, are
all teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Many more are long gone. No
one wants to stop the Internet, but Amazon is becoming the Standard
Oil of retail, and is moving into the grocery business, streaming
entertainment, and God knows what else. Standard Oil, and several
other monopolies, were broken up by the Sherman Antitrust Act. If I
was an Amazon investor it would be something to think about.
I've noticed that more companies are now offering free shipping,
something that you pay for as a Premier member of Amazon. This is a
whole new terrain for competition. Creative destruction?
At Amazon, on many items, I get free shipping if the total
price (not counting tax) of "eligible" items is $35 or more.
(It might be more $ now, since it's been a while since I
bought anything from Amazon.) That's without being a
"prime" member.
Yes, but we have often bought things for less than $35 and avoid the
temptation to buy things on impulse to bring the total order up to $35.
Tempting, but I'm finding it convenient to buy and get things delivered
to my door rather than drive into town, even if the product is available
locally. We also use Amazon Prime to stream video.

Otherwise, you really have to watch "free delivery." Just this past
week I was looking for the best price for an item and found it at the
Walmart site. Normally I would not buy anything from Walmart, but the
price was very good and they advertised free shipping. But, in the
small print it was free shipping to a local Walmart store, for us not
very convenient since the closest one is on the mainland. Definitely
sneaky and not worth it. I really hate Walmart!

Of course, you have to watch Amazon too. If the product comes from a
3rd party provider, the $35 free shipping does not count.

It is getting so that you cannot trust anyone!
rumpelstiltskin
2018-10-13 00:29:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
I've noticed that more companies are now offering free shipping,
something that you pay for as a Premier member of Amazon. This is a
whole new terrain for competition. Creative destruction?
At Amazon, on many items, I get free shipping if the total
price (not counting tax) of "eligible" items is $35 or more.
(It might be more $ now, since it's been a while since I
bought anything from Amazon.) That's without being a
"prime" member.
Yes, but we have often bought things for less than $35 and avoid the
temptation to buy things on impulse to bring the total order up to $35.
Tempting, but I'm finding it convenient to buy and get things delivered
to my door rather than drive into town, even if the product is available
locally. We also use Amazon Prime to stream video.
Otherwise, you really have to watch "free delivery." Just this past
week I was looking for the best price for an item and found it at the
Walmart site. Normally I would not buy anything from Walmart, but the
price was very good and they advertised free shipping. But, in the
small print it was free shipping to a local Walmart store, for us not
very convenient since the closest one is on the mainland. Definitely
sneaky and not worth it. I really hate Walmart!
Of course, you have to watch Amazon too. If the product comes from a
3rd party provider, the $35 free shipping does not count.
Yes, but that's plain to see while you're ordering. Even if
you don't see it then, you get a full billing including any free
delivery clearly broken out before you accept the order, so
if anything's wrong, you can see it there, before you accept
the order. Once you accept the order, the billing is always
exactly what you saw in the full billing breakout before you
pressed the button to accept the order. I've never had any
problem at all with Amazon.

I've never ordered anything from Walmart. I've bought
stuff in person from their stores, but not often because
there isn't a Walmart anywhere near San Francisco. San
Francisco is "unfriendly" to big box stores, which is why
I have to drive or take two buses to get to Costco or
Foodsco, and the supermarket a block from my flat is
about the most expensive supermarket imaginable,
"Molly Stone". A lot of local people objected while the
planning was going on for a new owner, with actual
human locals asking for a Trader Joe's and whatnot,
but our opinion counts for nothing so we got this
pretentious supermarket that's as expensive as a
corner convenience grocery. I've never bought more
than an onion or two from there, and I've run into
other people who avoid shopping there too for the
same reason. I would have loved if a Costco or a
Foodsco had gone into that spot, but the city Solons
won't stand for that. They relegate those to the
warehouse district. I guess we're lucky they
tolerate them at all, since they won't tolerate a
Walmart anywhere in the city.
Post by islander
It is getting so that you cannot trust anyone!
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-13 02:34:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
I've noticed that more companies are now offering free shipping,
something that you pay for as a Premier member of Amazon. This is a
whole new terrain for competition. Creative destruction?
At Amazon, on many items, I get free shipping if the total
price (not counting tax) of "eligible" items is $35 or more.
(It might be more $ now, since it's been a while since I
bought anything from Amazon.) That's without being a
"prime" member.
Yes, but we have often bought things for less than $35 and avoid the
temptation to buy things on impulse to bring the total order up to $35.
Tempting, but I'm finding it convenient to buy and get things delivered
to my door rather than drive into town, even if the product is available
locally. We also use Amazon Prime to stream video.
Otherwise, you really have to watch "free delivery." Just this past
week I was looking for the best price for an item and found it at the
Walmart site. Normally I would not buy anything from Walmart, but the
price was very good and they advertised free shipping. But, in the
small print it was free shipping to a local Walmart store, for us not
very convenient since the closest one is on the mainland. Definitely
sneaky and not worth it. I really hate Walmart!
Of course, you have to watch Amazon too. If the product comes from a
3rd party provider, the $35 free shipping does not count.
Yes, but that's plain to see while you're ordering. Even if
you don't see it then, you get a full billing including any free
delivery clearly broken out before you accept the order, so
if anything's wrong, you can see it there, before you accept
the order. Once you accept the order, the billing is always
exactly what you saw in the full billing breakout before you
pressed the button to accept the order. I've never had any
problem at all with Amazon.
I've never ordered anything from Walmart. I've bought
stuff in person from their stores, but not often because
there isn't a Walmart anywhere near San Francisco. San
Francisco is "unfriendly" to big box stores, which is why
I have to drive or take two buses to get to Costco or
Foodsco, and the supermarket a block from my flat is
about the most expensive supermarket imaginable,
"Molly Stone". A lot of local people objected while the
planning was going on for a new owner, with actual
human locals asking for a Trader Joe's and whatnot,
but our opinion counts for nothing so we got this
pretentious supermarket that's as expensive as a
corner convenience grocery. I've never bought more
than an onion or two from there, and I've run into
other people who avoid shopping there too for the
same reason. I would have loved if a Costco or a
Foodsco had gone into that spot, but the city Solons
won't stand for that. They relegate those to the
warehouse district. I guess we're lucky they
tolerate them at all, since they won't tolerate a
Walmart anywhere in the city.
We have 2 Walmarts within walking distance. One is a grocery store and the other is everything. One of the Walmarts has a "El Super" Hispanic market across the street with prices way below Walmart. Problem is, you have to fight your way through the picket signs to get into the non-union Hispanic store.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
It is getting so that you cannot trust anyone!
El Castor
2018-10-13 08:20:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
Yes, but Amazon eliminated stock options and other goodies so the employees are actually making less than before. But Amazon got hit hard this week and last. It's now down 16% from the all time high of 2050. I lost $330.
On a related issue -- I love Amazon, but its success presents a
problem. Sears, JC Penny, Barnes & Noble, and a slew of others, are
all teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Many more are long gone. No
one wants to stop the Internet, but Amazon is becoming the Standard
Oil of retail, and is moving into the grocery business, streaming
entertainment, and God knows what else. Standard Oil, and several
other monopolies, were broken up by the Sherman Antitrust Act. If I
was an Amazon investor it would be something to think about.
I've noticed that more companies are now offering free shipping,
something that you pay for as a Premier member of Amazon. This is a
whole new terrain for competition. Creative destruction?
Not really. At least in Amazon's case they charge an annual fee for
Prime membership -- that, together with 2 day shipping is a powerful
incentive to shop with Amazon. Seems to work. They aren't losing
money. I don't object to Amazon's very astute business practices. The
wife and I are Prime members and make use of it all the time, but I am
a believer in anti-trust laws. The Internet, and Amazon's well
deserved success, have bestowed a real conundrum on us.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
islander
2018-10-12 01:15:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
It sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. Who would you have
blamed if Feinstein violated Ford's confidence?
Of course she violated her confidence, and did it immediately. Who
hired the lawyer (and paid him), and how about that lie detector test?
The lawyer, gofundme, etc was a way to anonymously fund the prep work,
but not to get at the truth, just preparation to impale Kavanaugh.
Well, you better learn to like Kavanaugh. He will be with us for a
very long time. (-8
Post by islander
As to Portland, it is a symptom of the increasing political division
that has been and is being made worse by Trump. Now the claim seems to
be looking for any reason to blame Democrats for mob rule. This is
becoming a tinder box that any spark can ignite. In the case of
Portland, this was a peaceful demonstration of yet another police
shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons. Was the shooting justified?
Who knows? The demonstrators were attempting to direct traffic around
the demonstration. Did they overreact when a couple of drivers
objected? Yes. We are fortunate that the situation did not degenerate
into something more serious.
Too much anger. Too many guns. What we need is someone to calm things
down and Trump is doing exactly the opposite in the desperate attempt to
mobilize Republican voters. This is not good for anyone.
You make a good apologist, but where were you when they did $100K
damage to UC Berkeley? Democrats should be demanding that Antifa cut
it out, and all they do is nod in approval.
No one on the Democratic side is advocating or approving violence. On
the Republican side, well, there is Trump who is constantly stirring the
pot. And, the right wing media is busy pumping the myth that the
Democrats advocate "mob" rule. Not happening!
Sorry, but the threats and hysterical screaming (paid?) protestors are
almost entirely of the Left. My side of the aisle refers to it as
Trump Derangement Syndrome. Certainly looks like would be mob rule to
me. If not, please tell me what a conservative has to do to be allowed
to speak at UC Berkeley.
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
El Castor
2018-10-12 05:37:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
It sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. Who would you have
blamed if Feinstein violated Ford's confidence?
Of course she violated her confidence, and did it immediately. Who
hired the lawyer (and paid him), and how about that lie detector test?
The lawyer, gofundme, etc was a way to anonymously fund the prep work,
but not to get at the truth, just preparation to impale Kavanaugh.
Well, you better learn to like Kavanaugh. He will be with us for a
very long time. (-8
Post by islander
As to Portland, it is a symptom of the increasing political division
that has been and is being made worse by Trump. Now the claim seems to
be looking for any reason to blame Democrats for mob rule. This is
becoming a tinder box that any spark can ignite. In the case of
Portland, this was a peaceful demonstration of yet another police
shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons. Was the shooting justified?
Who knows? The demonstrators were attempting to direct traffic around
the demonstration. Did they overreact when a couple of drivers
objected? Yes. We are fortunate that the situation did not degenerate
into something more serious.
Too much anger. Too many guns. What we need is someone to calm things
down and Trump is doing exactly the opposite in the desperate attempt to
mobilize Republican voters. This is not good for anyone.
You make a good apologist, but where were you when they did $100K
damage to UC Berkeley? Democrats should be demanding that Antifa cut
it out, and all they do is nod in approval.
No one on the Democratic side is advocating or approving violence. On
the Republican side, well, there is Trump who is constantly stirring the
pot. And, the right wing media is busy pumping the myth that the
Democrats advocate "mob" rule. Not happening!
Sorry, but the threats and hysterical screaming (paid?) protestors are
almost entirely of the Left. My side of the aisle refers to it as
Trump Derangement Syndrome. Certainly looks like would be mob rule to
me. If not, please tell me what a conservative has to do to be allowed
to speak at UC Berkeley.
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
Obama was along for the ride. Trump is driving the bus.
islander
2018-10-12 14:38:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
It sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. Who would you have
blamed if Feinstein violated Ford's confidence?
Of course she violated her confidence, and did it immediately. Who
hired the lawyer (and paid him), and how about that lie detector test?
The lawyer, gofundme, etc was a way to anonymously fund the prep work,
but not to get at the truth, just preparation to impale Kavanaugh.
Well, you better learn to like Kavanaugh. He will be with us for a
very long time. (-8
Post by islander
As to Portland, it is a symptom of the increasing political division
that has been and is being made worse by Trump. Now the claim seems to
be looking for any reason to blame Democrats for mob rule. This is
becoming a tinder box that any spark can ignite. In the case of
Portland, this was a peaceful demonstration of yet another police
shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons. Was the shooting justified?
Who knows? The demonstrators were attempting to direct traffic around
the demonstration. Did they overreact when a couple of drivers
objected? Yes. We are fortunate that the situation did not degenerate
into something more serious.
Too much anger. Too many guns. What we need is someone to calm things
down and Trump is doing exactly the opposite in the desperate attempt to
mobilize Republican voters. This is not good for anyone.
You make a good apologist, but where were you when they did $100K
damage to UC Berkeley? Democrats should be demanding that Antifa cut
it out, and all they do is nod in approval.
No one on the Democratic side is advocating or approving violence. On
the Republican side, well, there is Trump who is constantly stirring the
pot. And, the right wing media is busy pumping the myth that the
Democrats advocate "mob" rule. Not happening!
Sorry, but the threats and hysterical screaming (paid?) protestors are
almost entirely of the Left. My side of the aisle refers to it as
Trump Derangement Syndrome. Certainly looks like would be mob rule to
me. If not, please tell me what a conservative has to do to be allowed
to speak at UC Berkeley.
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
Obama was along for the ride. Trump is driving the bus.
Or, Trump is riding Obama's coattails. How are you liking Trump's
blundering in Tariffs? Do you think your econ professor at Berkeley
would approve?
El Castor
2018-10-13 08:33:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
It sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. Who would you have
blamed if Feinstein violated Ford's confidence?
Of course she violated her confidence, and did it immediately. Who
hired the lawyer (and paid him), and how about that lie detector test?
The lawyer, gofundme, etc was a way to anonymously fund the prep work,
but not to get at the truth, just preparation to impale Kavanaugh.
Well, you better learn to like Kavanaugh. He will be with us for a
very long time. (-8
Post by islander
As to Portland, it is a symptom of the increasing political division
that has been and is being made worse by Trump. Now the claim seems to
be looking for any reason to blame Democrats for mob rule. This is
becoming a tinder box that any spark can ignite. In the case of
Portland, this was a peaceful demonstration of yet another police
shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons. Was the shooting justified?
Who knows? The demonstrators were attempting to direct traffic around
the demonstration. Did they overreact when a couple of drivers
objected? Yes. We are fortunate that the situation did not degenerate
into something more serious.
Too much anger. Too many guns. What we need is someone to calm things
down and Trump is doing exactly the opposite in the desperate attempt to
mobilize Republican voters. This is not good for anyone.
You make a good apologist, but where were you when they did $100K
damage to UC Berkeley? Democrats should be demanding that Antifa cut
it out, and all they do is nod in approval.
No one on the Democratic side is advocating or approving violence. On
the Republican side, well, there is Trump who is constantly stirring the
pot. And, the right wing media is busy pumping the myth that the
Democrats advocate "mob" rule. Not happening!
Sorry, but the threats and hysterical screaming (paid?) protestors are
almost entirely of the Left. My side of the aisle refers to it as
Trump Derangement Syndrome. Certainly looks like would be mob rule to
me. If not, please tell me what a conservative has to do to be allowed
to speak at UC Berkeley.
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
Obama was along for the ride. Trump is driving the bus.
Or, Trump is riding Obama's coattails. How are you liking Trump's
blundering in Tariffs? Do you think your econ professor at Berkeley
would approve?
Actually, I think he might. Come to find out we were 2 or 3 years from
being completely out of the steel business. Is that in our national
interests? I don't think so. When NAFTA passed, I naively believed
that it truly meant completely free trade -- as in no tariffs. Now I
find out that Canada has been charging tariffs all along. Trump has
offered to eliminate all tariffs. The Canadians just smile and shake
their heads. It's about time we started getting tough.
islander
2018-10-13 14:06:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
It sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. Who would you have
blamed if Feinstein violated Ford's confidence?
Of course she violated her confidence, and did it immediately. Who
hired the lawyer (and paid him), and how about that lie detector test?
The lawyer, gofundme, etc was a way to anonymously fund the prep work,
but not to get at the truth, just preparation to impale Kavanaugh.
Well, you better learn to like Kavanaugh. He will be with us for a
very long time. (-8
Post by islander
As to Portland, it is a symptom of the increasing political division
that has been and is being made worse by Trump. Now the claim seems to
be looking for any reason to blame Democrats for mob rule. This is
becoming a tinder box that any spark can ignite. In the case of
Portland, this was a peaceful demonstration of yet another police
shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons. Was the shooting justified?
Who knows? The demonstrators were attempting to direct traffic around
the demonstration. Did they overreact when a couple of drivers
objected? Yes. We are fortunate that the situation did not degenerate
into something more serious.
Too much anger. Too many guns. What we need is someone to calm things
down and Trump is doing exactly the opposite in the desperate attempt to
mobilize Republican voters. This is not good for anyone.
You make a good apologist, but where were you when they did $100K
damage to UC Berkeley? Democrats should be demanding that Antifa cut
it out, and all they do is nod in approval.
No one on the Democratic side is advocating or approving violence. On
the Republican side, well, there is Trump who is constantly stirring the
pot. And, the right wing media is busy pumping the myth that the
Democrats advocate "mob" rule. Not happening!
Sorry, but the threats and hysterical screaming (paid?) protestors are
almost entirely of the Left. My side of the aisle refers to it as
Trump Derangement Syndrome. Certainly looks like would be mob rule to
me. If not, please tell me what a conservative has to do to be allowed
to speak at UC Berkeley.
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
Obama was along for the ride. Trump is driving the bus.
Or, Trump is riding Obama's coattails. How are you liking Trump's
blundering in Tariffs? Do you think your econ professor at Berkeley
would approve?
Actually, I think he might. Come to find out we were 2 or 3 years from
being completely out of the steel business. Is that in our national
interests? I don't think so. When NAFTA passed, I naively believed
that it truly meant completely free trade -- as in no tariffs. Now I
find out that Canada has been charging tariffs all along. Trump has
offered to eliminate all tariffs. The Canadians just smile and shake
their heads. It's about time we started getting tough.
Any trade agreement is a package of compromises and that includes NAFTA.
Did you know that the US charged tariffs on lumber coming from Canada?
The agreement was that finished products constructed of lumber were
not charged, but dimensional lumber was. For a time we were buying
dimensional lumber with a hole drilled in it to avoid that tariff. The
objective of that tariff was, of course, to protect Weyerhouser. You
may think that trade with Mexico was mostly about manufacturing. It was
not. It was mostly about agricultural products, a benefit to American
farmers who saw Mexico as a growing market for grain especially.

But, NAFTA had a lot of untended consequences, especially as both
countries industrialized. It needed to be upgraded, not eliminated as
Trump promised. So, what was actually accomplished? Not much and
certainly not anything worth the crowing about it. For example, Trump
wanted Mexico to eliminate their VAT tax on US products - effectively a
tariff on all US exports to Mexico. He didn't get it and Mexico will
continue to charge 16% on every part of supply chains that flow through
Mexico. Oh yes, and Trump's agreement with Mexico requires that any
product manufactured in Mexico must be manufactured in union shops that
pay a minimum wage of $16 per hour. I think that is a good thing, but
suspect that you disagree.
El Castor
2018-10-13 18:53:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
It sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. Who would you have
blamed if Feinstein violated Ford's confidence?
Of course she violated her confidence, and did it immediately. Who
hired the lawyer (and paid him), and how about that lie detector test?
The lawyer, gofundme, etc was a way to anonymously fund the prep work,
but not to get at the truth, just preparation to impale Kavanaugh.
Well, you better learn to like Kavanaugh. He will be with us for a
very long time. (-8
Post by islander
As to Portland, it is a symptom of the increasing political division
that has been and is being made worse by Trump. Now the claim seems to
be looking for any reason to blame Democrats for mob rule. This is
becoming a tinder box that any spark can ignite. In the case of
Portland, this was a peaceful demonstration of yet another police
shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons. Was the shooting justified?
Who knows? The demonstrators were attempting to direct traffic around
the demonstration. Did they overreact when a couple of drivers
objected? Yes. We are fortunate that the situation did not degenerate
into something more serious.
Too much anger. Too many guns. What we need is someone to calm things
down and Trump is doing exactly the opposite in the desperate attempt to
mobilize Republican voters. This is not good for anyone.
You make a good apologist, but where were you when they did $100K
damage to UC Berkeley? Democrats should be demanding that Antifa cut
it out, and all they do is nod in approval.
No one on the Democratic side is advocating or approving violence. On
the Republican side, well, there is Trump who is constantly stirring the
pot. And, the right wing media is busy pumping the myth that the
Democrats advocate "mob" rule. Not happening!
Sorry, but the threats and hysterical screaming (paid?) protestors are
almost entirely of the Left. My side of the aisle refers to it as
Trump Derangement Syndrome. Certainly looks like would be mob rule to
me. If not, please tell me what a conservative has to do to be allowed
to speak at UC Berkeley.
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
Obama was along for the ride. Trump is driving the bus.
Or, Trump is riding Obama's coattails. How are you liking Trump's
blundering in Tariffs? Do you think your econ professor at Berkeley
would approve?
Actually, I think he might. Come to find out we were 2 or 3 years from
being completely out of the steel business. Is that in our national
interests? I don't think so. When NAFTA passed, I naively believed
that it truly meant completely free trade -- as in no tariffs. Now I
find out that Canada has been charging tariffs all along. Trump has
offered to eliminate all tariffs. The Canadians just smile and shake
their heads. It's about time we started getting tough.
Any trade agreement is a package of compromises and that includes NAFTA.
Did you know that the US charged tariffs on lumber coming from Canada?
The agreement was that finished products constructed of lumber were
not charged, but dimensional lumber was. For a time we were buying
dimensional lumber with a hole drilled in it to avoid that tariff. The
objective of that tariff was, of course, to protect Weyerhouser. You
may think that trade with Mexico was mostly about manufacturing. It was
not. It was mostly about agricultural products, a benefit to American
farmers who saw Mexico as a growing market for grain especially.
But, NAFTA had a lot of untended consequences, especially as both
countries industrialized. It needed to be upgraded, not eliminated as
Trump promised. So, what was actually accomplished? Not much and
certainly not anything worth the crowing about it. For example, Trump
wanted Mexico to eliminate their VAT tax on US products - effectively a
tariff on all US exports to Mexico. He didn't get it and Mexico will
continue to charge 16% on every part of supply chains that flow through
Mexico. Oh yes, and Trump's agreement with Mexico requires that any
product manufactured in Mexico must be manufactured in union shops that
pay a minimum wage of $16 per hour. I think that is a good thing, but
suspect that you disagree.
I think it's inappropriate for the US to dictate wages and working
conditions to other countries -- not because I am in favor of low
wages and working conditions, but because I believe it is symbolic of
American arrogance -- the idea that we can, and should, impose our
values on other countries. However, I also realize there are probably
good arguments on both sides of the question.
w***@gmail.com
2018-10-13 19:58:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Democrats were still pissed that McConnell had refused to address the
legitimate candidacy of Obama's nomination, Merrick Garland and
Republicans were still pissed that Democrats prevented the appointment
of Robert Bork. Republicans were probably still pissed that Anita Hill
testified against Clarence Thomas.
This time around, McConnell knew that the extensive Kavanaugh paper
trail was going to be a problem in his review by the Judicial Committee,
so the Republicans adopted a strategy of limiting access to most of
(90%) of his writings, especially from his time in the GW Bush
administration. Presumably, the archives could provide what the
Democrats wanted, but not until the end of October. At the same time,
the Trump administration was opposing the release of information from a
previous Republican administration.
The rush to confirmation was mostly motivated by limiting access to
Kavanaugh's writings, McConnell's primary concern. From the Democrat's
point of view, there were several issues, but the most serious was
Kavanaugh's position, as evidenced by known writings, on the issue of
executive privilege. There is now question but that other candidates
could be found that would satisfy other Republican concerns about
abortion, immigration, minority rights, voting rights, corporate related
policies, and other traditional issues. The big issue, IMV, is that the
Democrats did not want a "get-out-of-jail" justice on SCOTUS.
Dr. Ford and other women came out of the woodwork and the Democrats were
faced with the problem of what to do with the "abuse of women" issue.
What should they have done, in your view? What do you think the
Republicans would have done if the situation were reversed?
Sexual abuse is an important issue and it is long since time that we
addressed it openly. Too bad that the Trump administration appears to
have throttled the FBI investigation. A fig leaf by any other name?
Lame excuses. As I said, it was all about 5/4 -- ALL. If Democrats had
and opposed Kavanaugh's nomination on the grounds of 5/4, at least I
would have respected their honesty, but to destroy a man and his
family without a shred of proof -- beyond disgusting.
Sorry, but I don't think that the multiple accusations should have been
ignored. This could have been handled in a professional way without
harming anyone if the Republicans had not rushed to confirmation. They
left me with the suspicion that they were hiding something. Kavanaugh's
performance didn't help and it seems that more than 2400 law professors
agree.
There was ample time to investigate. Diane Feinstein received the
letter in July, and sat on it until the hearing. She did it because
the goal was not the truth, but rather to stall and delay until the
election. Meanwhile, who was financing Ford's lawyer and very
suspicious polygraph examination? Not Ford. The DNC? George Soros?
Who? When questioned, she didn't know if, or by whom, they had been
paid. Someone, not Ford, started one or more GoFundMe's that
apparently were a source of funding. Last I heard they contained more
than $300,000. Who started these, and where did the money come from?
Believe what you want to believe, but as far as I'm concerned it is
OBVIOUS that this abomination was carefully crafted, and all about 5/4
-- not about the truth.
I have had it with hysterical screaming Democrats, and their threats
and accusations. Just read yesterday that ANTIFA is directing traffic
in Portland! Anyone who questions them is attacked! What is wrong with
you people!
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/portland-antifa-attacked-elderly-man-his-car-ignoring-their-traffic-directions
It sounds like you are looking for someone to blame. Who would you have
blamed if Feinstein violated Ford's confidence?
Of course she violated her confidence, and did it immediately. Who
hired the lawyer (and paid him), and how about that lie detector test?
The lawyer, gofundme, etc was a way to anonymously fund the prep work,
but not to get at the truth, just preparation to impale Kavanaugh.
Well, you better learn to like Kavanaugh. He will be with us for a
very long time. (-8
Post by islander
As to Portland, it is a symptom of the increasing political division
that has been and is being made worse by Trump. Now the claim seems to
be looking for any reason to blame Democrats for mob rule. This is
becoming a tinder box that any spark can ignite. In the case of
Portland, this was a peaceful demonstration of yet another police
shooting of a black man, Patrick Kimmons. Was the shooting justified?
Who knows? The demonstrators were attempting to direct traffic around
the demonstration. Did they overreact when a couple of drivers
objected? Yes. We are fortunate that the situation did not degenerate
into something more serious.
Too much anger. Too many guns. What we need is someone to calm things
down and Trump is doing exactly the opposite in the desperate attempt to
mobilize Republican voters. This is not good for anyone.
You make a good apologist, but where were you when they did $100K
damage to UC Berkeley? Democrats should be demanding that Antifa cut
it out, and all they do is nod in approval.
No one on the Democratic side is advocating or approving violence. On
the Republican side, well, there is Trump who is constantly stirring the
pot. And, the right wing media is busy pumping the myth that the
Democrats advocate "mob" rule. Not happening!
Sorry, but the threats and hysterical screaming (paid?) protestors are
almost entirely of the Left. My side of the aisle refers to it as
Trump Derangement Syndrome. Certainly looks like would be mob rule to
me. If not, please tell me what a conservative has to do to be allowed
to speak at UC Berkeley.
Berkeley will be just fine.
https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/report_of_the_commission_on_free_speech.pdf
I've never doubted the UC commitment to free speech, but I've searched
the document and can't find an ANTIFA signature anywhere. Not even a
Democrat politician. Hmmm.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
What has Trump done that is so terrible -- lowest Black unemployment
in recorded history. A very strong economy. Conversations with North
Korea that may or may not pan out, but have for the moment got the
North and South talking and put a halt to missile and nuke tests. I
could go on, but I know you don't want to hear it. If Democrats, or
the socialist left (same thing?), have a plan to do better, I am
willing to be convinced, but let's hear it. End ICE, open borders,
free healthcare for all. Scandinavian socialism? Is that it?
You seem to be falling more deeply into a mode of intentional ignorance.
As a conservative, you normally speak in an informed way about
conservative principles, but you now appear to have abandoned them in
favor of blindly drinking the Trump cool aid. What has he done that is
so terrible? Most obvious is his tendency to create a crisis where none
exists in order to sweep in to fix the problem. That is a practice that
he has evidently used his whole life. It worked for him in real estate,
but the stakes are much higher now. His divisive rhetoric is toxic and
instead of bringing the nation together, he is amplifying our divisions
and making things worse.
More importantly, he (with the help of the Republicans) is dismantling
the government, especially the intelligence community and the Department
of Justice. This is especially dangerous in a world full of
opportunities for lawlessness and even war. As a nation, we depend
heavily on our institutions of government. The damage that the Trump
administration is doing is well documented in Michael Lewis' new book,
*The Fifth Risk.* It is well written and if you really want to know
about the damage that the Trump administration is doing, I recommend
that you read it. I doubt that you will and that is too bad. We need
knowledgeable conservatives to balance liberal extremes, but not those
who have abandoned conservative principles in favor of blind tribalism.
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
Obama was along for the ride. Trump is driving the bus.
Or, Trump is riding Obama's coattails. How are you liking Trump's
blundering in Tariffs? Do you think your econ professor at Berkeley
would approve?
Actually, I think he might. Come to find out we were 2 or 3 years from
being completely out of the steel business. Is that in our national
interests? I don't think so. When NAFTA passed, I naively believed
that it truly meant completely free trade -- as in no tariffs. Now I
find out that Canada has been charging tariffs all along. Trump has
offered to eliminate all tariffs. The Canadians just smile and shake
their heads. It's about time we started getting tough.
Any trade agreement is a package of compromises and that includes NAFTA.
Did you know that the US charged tariffs on lumber coming from Canada?
The agreement was that finished products constructed of lumber were
not charged, but dimensional lumber was. For a time we were buying
dimensional lumber with a hole drilled in it to avoid that tariff. The
objective of that tariff was, of course, to protect Weyerhouser. You
may think that trade with Mexico was mostly about manufacturing. It was
not. It was mostly about agricultural products, a benefit to American
farmers who saw Mexico as a growing market for grain especially.
But, NAFTA had a lot of untended consequences, especially as both
countries industrialized. It needed to be upgraded, not eliminated as
Trump promised. So, what was actually accomplished? Not much and
certainly not anything worth the crowing about it. For example, Trump
wanted Mexico to eliminate their VAT tax on US products - effectively a
tariff on all US exports to Mexico. He didn't get it and Mexico will
continue to charge 16% on every part of supply chains that flow through
Mexico. Oh yes, and Trump's agreement with Mexico requires that any
product manufactured in Mexico must be manufactured in union shops that
pay a minimum wage of $16 per hour. I think that is a good thing, but
suspect that you disagree.
I think it's inappropriate for the US to dictate wages and working
conditions to other countries -- not because I am in favor of low
wages and working conditions, but because I believe it is symbolic of
American arrogance -- the idea that we can, and should, impose our
values on other countries. However, I also realize there are probably
good arguments on both sides of the question.
You mean impose and dictatet your values!
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-12 16:02:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
That article doesn't mention the extra 10 trillion Obama added to the debt.Why do they ignore something like that?

Fun Fact: Ten trillion divided by 124.6 million US Families = $80,256 Dollars Per Family. You could have purchased: a tiny home, a car, clothes, TV, new phone, paid off debts, had a few small vacations, bought seasons tickets to a major sports team, and consumed a fresh luxury beverage every day for 8 years.
islander
2018-10-12 20:15:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
That article doesn't mention the extra 10 trillion Obama added to the debt.Why do they ignore something like that?
Fun Fact: Ten trillion divided by 124.6 million US Families = $80,256 Dollars Per Family. You could have purchased: a tiny home, a car, clothes, TV, new phone, paid off debts, had a few small vacations, bought seasons tickets to a major sports team, and consumed a fresh luxury beverage every day for 8 years.
The problem with average figures like this is that it assumes that
everyone is equally liable for the whole debt. Why is that the case?
Shouldn't the financial organizations that destroyed the economy in the
2009 crash be responsible? Conversely, do you think that everyone
should share in the profits from the work that was done to restore the
economy. Should your gain in Amazon be shared with everyone? I doubt
that you would agree. Same problem!
El Castor
2018-10-13 08:44:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
That article doesn't mention the extra 10 trillion Obama added to the debt.Why do they ignore something like that?
Fun Fact: Ten trillion divided by 124.6 million US Families = $80,256 Dollars Per Family. You could have purchased: a tiny home, a car, clothes, TV, new phone, paid off debts, had a few small vacations, bought seasons tickets to a major sports team, and consumed a fresh luxury beverage every day for 8 years.
The problem with average figures like this is that it assumes that
everyone is equally liable for the whole debt. Why is that the case?
Shouldn't the financial organizations that destroyed the economy in the
2009 crash be responsible? Conversely, do you think that everyone
should share in the profits from the work that was done to restore the
economy. Should your gain in Amazon be shared with everyone? I doubt
that you would agree. Same problem!
The idea with that debt is that the corporate tax cut and higher
employment numbers will stimulate the economy enough to eliminate most
or all of the additional debt. We shall see, but I find complaints
about debt coming from people who ignored the enormous debt under
Obama to be more than a little disingenuous.
islander
2018-10-13 14:11:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
That article doesn't mention the extra 10 trillion Obama added to the debt.Why do they ignore something like that?
Fun Fact: Ten trillion divided by 124.6 million US Families = $80,256 Dollars Per Family. You could have purchased: a tiny home, a car, clothes, TV, new phone, paid off debts, had a few small vacations, bought seasons tickets to a major sports team, and consumed a fresh luxury beverage every day for 8 years.
The problem with average figures like this is that it assumes that
everyone is equally liable for the whole debt. Why is that the case?
Shouldn't the financial organizations that destroyed the economy in the
2009 crash be responsible? Conversely, do you think that everyone
should share in the profits from the work that was done to restore the
economy. Should your gain in Amazon be shared with everyone? I doubt
that you would agree. Same problem!
The idea with that debt is that the corporate tax cut and higher
employment numbers will stimulate the economy enough to eliminate most
or all of the additional debt. We shall see, but I find complaints
about debt coming from people who ignored the enormous debt under
Obama to be more than a little disingenuous.
That wasn't what happened under Clinton. Trickle down hasn't worked
when it was tried under Republican administrations of the past, but
Republicans cling to the idea despite evidence that it doesn't work.
What was the definition of insanity?
El Castor
2018-10-13 19:08:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
That article doesn't mention the extra 10 trillion Obama added to the debt.Why do they ignore something like that?
Fun Fact: Ten trillion divided by 124.6 million US Families = $80,256 Dollars Per Family. You could have purchased: a tiny home, a car, clothes, TV, new phone, paid off debts, had a few small vacations, bought seasons tickets to a major sports team, and consumed a fresh luxury beverage every day for 8 years.
The problem with average figures like this is that it assumes that
everyone is equally liable for the whole debt. Why is that the case?
Shouldn't the financial organizations that destroyed the economy in the
2009 crash be responsible? Conversely, do you think that everyone
should share in the profits from the work that was done to restore the
economy. Should your gain in Amazon be shared with everyone? I doubt
that you would agree. Same problem!
The idea with that debt is that the corporate tax cut and higher
employment numbers will stimulate the economy enough to eliminate most
or all of the additional debt. We shall see, but I find complaints
about debt coming from people who ignored the enormous debt under
Obama to be more than a little disingenuous.
That wasn't what happened under Clinton. Trickle down hasn't worked
when it was tried under Republican administrations of the past, but
Republicans cling to the idea despite evidence that it doesn't work.
What was the definition of insanity?
Trump's corporate tax cut was much more than "trickle down". Our
corporate tax rates were the highest in the world, made US industry
non-competitive with their lower taxed rivals, and drove trillions of
dollars overseas -- dollars that could have, and should have, been
invested in the United States. What Trump accomplished was long
overdue. BTW, since many states impose their own corporate taxes,
arguably making our corporate taxation still too high, I hope
consideration in the future will be given to further cuts.
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-14 03:10:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
That article doesn't mention the extra 10 trillion Obama added to the debt.Why do they ignore something like that?
Fun Fact: Ten trillion divided by 124.6 million US Families = $80,256 Dollars Per Family. You could have purchased: a tiny home, a car, clothes, TV, new phone, paid off debts, had a few small vacations, bought seasons tickets to a major sports team, and consumed a fresh luxury beverage every day for 8 years.
The problem with average figures like this is that it assumes that
everyone is equally liable for the whole debt. Why is that the case?
Shouldn't the financial organizations that destroyed the economy in the
2009 crash be responsible? Conversely, do you think that everyone
should share in the profits from the work that was done to restore the
economy. Should your gain in Amazon be shared with everyone? I doubt
that you would agree. Same problem!
As far as I can tell, the government has realized a 97 billion profit on the 631 billion bailout money invested in 2009. So, the question is, if the bailout money has been returned with a profit, where is the other 10 trillion?


"Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $631B has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out—while $390B has been returned.

The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $338B. When those revenues are taken into account, the government has realized a $97.1B profit as of Oct. 11, 2018."

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
islander
2018-10-14 14:29:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
That article doesn't mention the extra 10 trillion Obama added to the debt.Why do they ignore something like that?
Fun Fact: Ten trillion divided by 124.6 million US Families = $80,256 Dollars Per Family. You could have purchased: a tiny home, a car, clothes, TV, new phone, paid off debts, had a few small vacations, bought seasons tickets to a major sports team, and consumed a fresh luxury beverage every day for 8 years.
The problem with average figures like this is that it assumes that
everyone is equally liable for the whole debt. Why is that the case?
Shouldn't the financial organizations that destroyed the economy in the
2009 crash be responsible? Conversely, do you think that everyone
should share in the profits from the work that was done to restore the
economy. Should your gain in Amazon be shared with everyone? I doubt
that you would agree. Same problem!
As far as I can tell, the government has realized a 97 billion profit on the 631 billion bailout money invested in 2009. So, the question is, if the bailout money has been returned with a profit, where is the other 10 trillion?
"Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $631B has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out—while $390B has been returned.
The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $338B. When those revenues are taken into account, the government has realized a $97.1B profit as of Oct. 11, 2018."
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
Look at the whole budget. The banks got off easy. They destroyed the
economy and their losses were small compared to how much money was lost
across the whole economy. Debt/GDP is a good measure of how we are
doing overall and it has been relatively stable at around 20% since
Reagan, dipping a little during the Clinton administration and peaking
at just short of 25% during the recovery from the Great Recession. Why
did it increase? Primarily because revenue declined. I'm relatively
familiar with what happened in the states where it was a disaster by
almost any measure. By 2009, nearly every state was having budgetary
problems (47 out of 50). As unemployment increased, our obligations to
provide unemployment compensation plummeted and it was up to the federal
government to pick up the slack. The unemployment compensation fund was
quickly exhausted and the federal government was extended 13 times, 10
of those times out of federal general funds. Meanwhile demands on
mandatory spending at the federal level was increasing with the impact
of retirees needing social security and medicare. And, overall spending
on national defense continued to rise.

So, $10T sounds like a lot of money, but not in the context of what we
could afford. Interest rates were very low and it made a lot of sense
to not only borrow to put money to work were it was needed, but also to
refinance existing debt from high interest notes to long term low
interest notes.

Overall, the debt/GDP came down to the 20% level again by 2014. Now the
Trump administration is pushing it back up for no good reason. Why? To
give tax benefits to the wealthy.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-14 14:48:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 10/14/2018 7:29 AM, islander wrote:

{snip}
Post by islander
Debt/GDP is a good measure of how we are
doing overall and it has been relatively stable at around 20% since
Reagan, dipping a little during the Clinton administration and peaking
at just short of 25% during the recovery from the Great Recession.
There are two measures of debt: 1) debt held by the public and 2) total
debt. The latter includes debt the government owes itself (e.g., money
owed to the Social Security trust Fund).

In either case, your debt/GDP figures aren't close to being correct.
Let's take debt held by the public. It was 25% when Reagan took office
and grew to about 45% by the time Clinton became President. It dropped
to about 30% under Clinton and rose under Bush43 to 40% prior to the
Great Recession. It then exploded up to 75% before slightly turning
back. It's now on the way up again.
islander
2018-10-14 16:36:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Debt/GDP is a good measure of how we are doing overall and it has been
relatively stable at around 20% since Reagan, dipping a little during
the Clinton administration and peaking at just short of 25% during the
recovery from the Great Recession.
There are two measures of debt:  1) debt held by the public and 2) total
debt.  The latter includes debt the government owes itself (e.g., money
owed to the Social Security trust Fund).
In either case, your debt/GDP figures aren't close to being correct.
Let's take debt held by the public.  It was 25% when Reagan took office
and grew to about 45% by the time Clinton became President.  It dropped
to about 30% under Clinton and rose under Bush43 to 40% prior to the
Great Recession.  It then exploded up to 75% before slightly turning
back.  It's now on the way up again.
Wow, that was a badly bungled answer on my part. Yes, the debt/GDP
ratios are much higher. What I was attempting to address was the issue
of whether debt increased more rapidly under the Obama administration
than under other administrations. That rate of change in debt has been
relatively constant since Reagan, dipping slightly during the Clinton
administration and increasing during the recovery from the Great
Recession. The rate of change stabilized again in the last few years of
the Obama administration, but is increasing under the Trump administration.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-14 16:56:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Debt/GDP is a good measure of how we are doing overall and it has
been relatively stable at around 20% since Reagan, dipping a little
during the Clinton administration and peaking at just short of 25%
during the recovery from the Great Recession.
There are two measures of debt:  1) debt held by the public and 2)
total debt.  The latter includes debt the government owes itself
(e.g., money owed to the Social Security trust Fund).
In either case, your debt/GDP figures aren't close to being correct.
Let's take debt held by the public.  It was 25% when Reagan took
office and grew to about 45% by the time Clinton became President.  It
dropped to about 30% under Clinton and rose under Bush43 to 40% prior
to the Great Recession.  It then exploded up to 75% before slightly
turning back.  It's now on the way up again.
Wow, that was a badly bungled answer on my part.  Yes, the debt/GDP
ratios are much higher.  What I was attempting to address was the issue
of whether debt increased more rapidly under the Obama administration
than under other administrations.  That rate of change in debt has been
relatively constant since Reagan, dipping slightly during the Clinton
administration and increasing during the recovery from the Great
Recession.  The rate of change stabilized again in the last few years of
the Obama administration, but is increasing under the Trump administration.
The biggest increases came under Obama, but that was intentional (and
bipartisan - started under Bush43). Trump has started the debt/GDP
going up again in good times.
islander
2018-10-15 15:21:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Debt/GDP is a good measure of how we are doing overall and it has
been relatively stable at around 20% since Reagan, dipping a little
during the Clinton administration and peaking at just short of 25%
during the recovery from the Great Recession.
There are two measures of debt:  1) debt held by the public and 2)
total debt.  The latter includes debt the government owes itself
(e.g., money owed to the Social Security trust Fund).
In either case, your debt/GDP figures aren't close to being correct.
Let's take debt held by the public.  It was 25% when Reagan took
office and grew to about 45% by the time Clinton became President.
It dropped to about 30% under Clinton and rose under Bush43 to 40%
prior to the Great Recession.  It then exploded up to 75% before
slightly turning back.  It's now on the way up again.
Wow, that was a badly bungled answer on my part.  Yes, the debt/GDP
ratios are much higher.  What I was attempting to address was the
issue of whether debt increased more rapidly under the Obama
administration than under other administrations.  That rate of change
in debt has been relatively constant since Reagan, dipping slightly
during the Clinton administration and increasing during the recovery
from the Great Recession.  The rate of change stabilized again in the
last few years of the Obama administration, but is increasing under
the Trump administration.
The biggest increases came under Obama, but that was intentional (and
bipartisan - started under Bush43).  Trump has started the debt/GDP
going up again in good times.
Well, not quite. Debt/GDP increased in 2009-10 in part because of
spending (intentional), but also in part because of reduced revenue (not
intentional). The reduced revenue was due to a decline in GDP, a
consequence of the Great Recession. The contrast with today is that
debt/GDP is going up again in part because of spending (intentional) and
also in part because of reduced revenue due to lowered taxes (also
intentional) despite continued improvement in GDP. Insanity, IMV.
El Castor
2018-10-15 18:12:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Debt/GDP is a good measure of how we are doing overall and it has
been relatively stable at around 20% since Reagan, dipping a little
during the Clinton administration and peaking at just short of 25%
during the recovery from the Great Recession.
There are two measures of debt:  1) debt held by the public and 2)
total debt.  The latter includes debt the government owes itself
(e.g., money owed to the Social Security trust Fund).
In either case, your debt/GDP figures aren't close to being correct.
Let's take debt held by the public.  It was 25% when Reagan took
office and grew to about 45% by the time Clinton became President.
It dropped to about 30% under Clinton and rose under Bush43 to 40%
prior to the Great Recession.  It then exploded up to 75% before
slightly turning back.  It's now on the way up again.
Wow, that was a badly bungled answer on my part.  Yes, the debt/GDP
ratios are much higher.  What I was attempting to address was the
issue of whether debt increased more rapidly under the Obama
administration than under other administrations.  That rate of change
in debt has been relatively constant since Reagan, dipping slightly
during the Clinton administration and increasing during the recovery
from the Great Recession.  The rate of change stabilized again in the
last few years of the Obama administration, but is increasing under
the Trump administration.
The biggest increases came under Obama, but that was intentional (and
bipartisan - started under Bush43).  Trump has started the debt/GDP
going up again in good times.
Well, not quite. Debt/GDP increased in 2009-10 in part because of
spending (intentional), but also in part because of reduced revenue (not
intentional). The reduced revenue was due to a decline in GDP, a
consequence of the Great Recession. The contrast with today is that
debt/GDP is going up again in part because of spending (intentional) and
also in part because of reduced revenue due to lowered taxes (also
intentional) despite continued improvement in GDP. Insanity, IMV.
The solution -- spending cuts and a reduction in the size of
government.
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-15 19:41:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Well, not quite. Debt/GDP increased in 2009-10 in part because of
spending (intentional), but also in part because of reduced revenue (not
intentional). The reduced revenue was due to a decline in GDP, a
consequence of the Great Recession. The contrast with today is that
debt/GDP is going up again in part because of spending (intentional) and
also in part because of reduced revenue due to lowered taxes (also
intentional) despite continued improvement in GDP. Insanity, IMV.
The solution -- spending cuts and a reduction in the size of
government.
Yes,we probably only need one department of defense. Why do they spread this stuff among 17 different government departments? And there are hundreds of other mickey mouse departments that could be put into just a few. What the hell does the Defense Health Agency do? Or the Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)?

Https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/d

Defense Acquisition University
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Defense Commissary Agency
Defense Contract Audit Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Defense Department (DOD)
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
Defense Finance and Accounting Service Out-of-Service Debt Mgmt. Center
Defense Health Agency
Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)
Defense Security Service
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)

And here are some of the economic departments beginning with "E"

Economic Adjustment Office
Economic Analysis, Bureau of (BEA)
Economic Development Administration (EDA)
Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment
Economic Research Service
Economics and Statistics Administration
Education Department (ED)
Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)
Elder Justice Initiative
Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of
Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
Employment and Training Administration
Endangered Species Program
Energy Department (DOE)
Energy Information Administration
Energy Star Program
English Language Acquisition Office
Engraving and Printing, Bureau of (BEP)
Environmental Management, Office of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
El Castor
2018-10-16 07:32:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Well, not quite. Debt/GDP increased in 2009-10 in part because of
spending (intentional), but also in part because of reduced revenue (not
intentional). The reduced revenue was due to a decline in GDP, a
consequence of the Great Recession. The contrast with today is that
debt/GDP is going up again in part because of spending (intentional) and
also in part because of reduced revenue due to lowered taxes (also
intentional) despite continued improvement in GDP. Insanity, IMV.
The solution -- spending cuts and a reduction in the size of
government.
Yes,we probably only need one department of defense. Why do they spread this stuff among 17 different government departments? And there are hundreds of other mickey mouse departments that could be put into just a few. What the hell does the Defense Health Agency do? Or the Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)?
Https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/d
Defense Acquisition University
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Defense Commissary Agency
Defense Contract Audit Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Defense Department (DOD)
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
Defense Finance and Accounting Service Out-of-Service Debt Mgmt. Center
Defense Health Agency
Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)
Defense Security Service
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
And here are some of the economic departments beginning with "E"
Economic Adjustment Office
Economic Analysis, Bureau of (BEA)
Economic Development Administration (EDA)
Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment
Economic Research Service
Economics and Statistics Administration
Education Department (ED)
Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)
Elder Justice Initiative
Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of
Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
Employment and Training Administration
Endangered Species Program
Energy Department (DOE)
Energy Information Administration
Energy Star Program
English Language Acquisition Office
Engraving and Printing, Bureau of (BEP)
Environmental Management, Office of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Working (or pretending to work) for the government pays very well. (-8

Here are a few good ones -- two million bucks worth ...
"The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers
love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this
experiment cost taxpayers $371,026."

"The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a
smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to
teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new
healthier food choices."

"The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain
lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose
aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts."
https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/10/22/top-6-examples-wasteful-government-spending-wastebook-2014/
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-15 02:44:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by islander
Debt/GDP is a good measure of how we are
doing overall and it has been relatively stable at around 20% since
Reagan, dipping a little during the Clinton administration and peaking
at just short of 25% during the recovery from the Great Recession.
There are two measures of debt: 1) debt held by the public and 2) total
debt. The latter includes debt the government owes itself (e.g., money
owed to the Social Security trust Fund).
In either case, your debt/GDP figures aren't close to being correct.
Let's take debt held by the public. It was 25% when Reagan took office
and grew to about 45% by the time Clinton became President. It dropped
to about 30% under Clinton and rose under Bush43 to 40% prior to the
Great Recession. It then exploded up to 75% before slightly turning
back. It's now on the way up again.
Debt/GDP now appears to be about 105%. The only years I see that were worse were 1945 and 1946. So, Trump's job is to bring the 105% figure down. Under Clinton, the ratio was 55%. But I don't think it matters since the US dollar is still the strongest currency in the world. Anybody will buy our debt. And refinancing at 30 day rates of 2% is better than paying 3.3% long term treasury rates.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-15 04:09:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Debt/GDP is a good measure of how we are doing overall and it has
been relatively stable at around 20% since Reagan, dipping a
little during the Clinton administration and peaking at just
short of 25% during the recovery from the Great Recession.
There are two measures of debt: 1) debt held by the public and 2)
total debt. The latter includes debt the government owes itself
(e.g., money owed to the Social Security trust Fund).
In either case, your debt/GDP figures aren't close to being
correct. Let's take debt held by the public. It was 25% when
Reagan took office and grew to about 45% by the time Clinton became
President. It dropped to about 30% under Clinton and rose under
Bush43 to 40% prior to the Great Recession. It then exploded up to
75% before slightly turning back. It's now on the way up again.
Debt/GDP now appears to be about 105%
That's the total debt figure. The debt held by the public is about 77%.
Post by b***@gmail.com
The only years I see that were
worse were 1945 and 1946. So, Trump's job is to bring the 105% figure
down.
The estimate for this year is 107%.
El Castor
2018-10-14 20:10:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
And you accuse Trump of divisive rhetoric? I look at what he has
actually done. I've waited for years for action on our disastrous
corporate tax policy, and Trump produced. BTW, he just had lunch with
Kanye West in the White House.
Here's more Trump reality. A sample of October news ...
"September’s 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, is
helping all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to
disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs -- like black
teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell
from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent last month, the lowest on records
dating to 1972."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy
"Meanwhile, wage growth has accelerated. The September jobs report
released on Friday showed that average hourly wages grew at a 3.3%
annual rate over the past six months. The jobless rate hit a 49-year
low of 3.7%. On Oct. 2, Amazon embraced a $15 minimum wage, giving a
pay hike to 250,000 Amazon (AMZN) employees and 100,000 seasonal
hires."
https://www.investors.com/all-categories/ibd-tipp-economic-optimism-sandp-500-wage-growth-trump-tariffs/
"North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/
Etc.
Here's what your side of the aisle "promises".
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ocasio-CortezCartoon.jpg
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2017/obamas-top-50-accomplishments-revisited/
That article doesn't mention the extra 10 trillion Obama added to the debt.Why do they ignore something like that?
Fun Fact: Ten trillion divided by 124.6 million US Families = $80,256 Dollars Per Family. You could have purchased: a tiny home, a car, clothes, TV, new phone, paid off debts, had a few small vacations, bought seasons tickets to a major sports team, and consumed a fresh luxury beverage every day for 8 years.
The problem with average figures like this is that it assumes that
everyone is equally liable for the whole debt. Why is that the case?
Shouldn't the financial organizations that destroyed the economy in the
2009 crash be responsible? Conversely, do you think that everyone
should share in the profits from the work that was done to restore the
economy. Should your gain in Amazon be shared with everyone? I doubt
that you would agree. Same problem!
As far as I can tell, the government has realized a 97 billion profit on the 631 billion bailout money invested in 2009. So, the question is, if the bailout money has been returned with a profit, where is the other 10 trillion?
"Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $631B has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out—while $390B has been returned.
The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $338B. When those revenues are taken into account, the government has realized a $97.1B profit as of Oct. 11, 2018."
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
Look at the whole budget. The banks got off easy. They destroyed the
economy
Get your facts straight. Once again, Democrats who refused to rein in
Fannie and Freddie, were largely responsible for 2008. In any case,
the economy was NOT "destroyed". The financial system was badly
damaged -- from which it recovered nicely.
Post by islander
and their losses were small compared to how much money was lost
across the whole economy. Debt/GDP is a good measure of how we are
doing overall and it has been relatively stable at around 20% since
Reagan, dipping a little during the Clinton administration and peaking
at just short of 25% during the recovery from the Great Recession. Why
did it increase? Primarily because revenue declined. I'm relatively
familiar with what happened in the states where it was a disaster by
almost any measure. By 2009, nearly every state was having budgetary
problems (47 out of 50). As unemployment increased, our obligations to
provide unemployment compensation plummeted and it was up to the federal
government to pick up the slack. The unemployment compensation fund was
quickly exhausted and the federal government was extended 13 times, 10
of those times out of federal general funds. Meanwhile demands on
mandatory spending at the federal level was increasing with the impact
of retirees needing social security and medicare. And, overall spending
on national defense continued to rise.
So, $10T sounds like a lot of money, but not in the context of what we
could afford. Interest rates were very low and it made a lot of sense
to not only borrow to put money to work were it was needed, but also to
refinance existing debt from high interest notes to long term low
interest notes.
Overall, the debt/GDP came down to the 20% level again by 2014. Now the
Trump administration is pushing it back up for no good reason. Why? To
give tax benefits to the wealthy.
Tax EQUITY for corporations -- not the wealthy. And everyone,
including the disadvantaged, have benefited greatly.

"US unemployment falls to 3.7 percent — lowest since 1969"
https://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/US-unemployment-rate-falls-to-49-year-low-of-3-7-13283888.php

"Jobs report: Black teen unemployment fell to 19.3 percent in
September, lowest on record "
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/money/jobs-report-black-teen-unemployment-fell-to-193-percent-in-september-lowest-on-record/ar-BBOafXy

"The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the nation’s 3.7
percent unemployment rate is “creating worker shortages and wage
gains, not just for high-skilled workers who tend to command the best
pay but also for low-skilled and blue-collar workers whose wages lag
behind.” A study by the Conference Board found wages in construction,
retail and maintenance have grown faster than salaries in white-collar
management jobs.
That conclusion meshes with Labor Department statistics showing the
“lowest-paid Americans saw weekly earnings grow more than 5 percent in
the second quarter from a year earlier,” the Journal noted, “more than
the national median gain of 1.7 percent for all workers.”"
https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-wages-rising-as-the-trump-economy-roars/

Perhaps you should have voted for Trump. This would not have happened
under Hillary.
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-15 12:04:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
That article doesn't mention the extra 10 trillion Obama added to the debt.Why do they ignore something like that?
Fun Fact: Ten trillion divided by 124.6 million US Families = $80,256 Dollars Per Family. You could have purchased: a tiny home, a car, clothes, TV, new phone, paid off debts, had a few small vacations, bought seasons tickets to a major sports team, and consumed a fresh luxury beverage every day for 8 years.
The problem with average figures like this is that it assumes that
everyone is equally liable for the whole debt. Why is that the case?
Shouldn't the financial organizations that destroyed the economy in the
2009 crash be responsible? Conversely, do you think that everyone
should share in the profits from the work that was done to restore the
economy. Should your gain in Amazon be shared with everyone? I doubt
that you would agree. Same problem!
The financial organizations are probably responsible for most of the jobs. When did a poor person ever create a job? As for Amazon, I was fully prepared to lose 50% when I bought it. It was a gamble like going to Las Vegas. Everybody has to have some fun in life. Last time I was in Vegas, I was playing black jack and I had 16 and the dealer had 16. Guess who won? The dealer gave me a 4 for a total of 20 and then gave himself a 5 for 21.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-08 21:20:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
If you object to the lack of an up or down vote, or this or that
motive or method, amend the constitution to prohibit it.
Gotcha. Do you object to a lack of an up or down vote?
No. Should I?
Let's see how you react when a Democratic Senate refuses an up and down
vote for a Republican nominee.
I expect them to do it, and would consider it to be reasonable if they
had no alternative. Just politics, and an annoying, but understandable
exercise of the majority's authority.
I am annotating this thread with "Jeff makes a claim" so I can easily
search for this post in Google groups for later citation.
Just an honest answer. Honesty is apparently an unknown quality in
liberals. Are liberals dishonest or delusional? I really don't know --
probably a bit of each. If liberals had openly objected to Kavanaugh's
nomination for the real reason -- his presence on the court gives
conservatives a 5 to 4 majority -- I could respect that. Instead they
attempt to destroy the man and his family by portraying him as an
alcoholic gang rapist. Hysterical liberal women parade about waving
signs and literally screaming themselves to exhaustion. Disgusting and
amazing at the same time. I doubt you understand the energizing effect
this has had on conservatives.
As I said previously, you are assuming the allegations are false,
something you cannot know.
Perhaps conservatives have been energized.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/
I am assuming, in fact supremely confident, that the Democrat smear
campaign
... again assuming facts that you cannot know.
Post by El Castor
was motivated by Kavanaugh's politics, not the validity, or
lack thereof, of some rolling around on a bed when he was a teenager.
Shame on you for being unwilling to admit an obvious and undeniable
fact. Had he been a liberal, the Cook letter would have been filed in
Diane's wastebasket.
Of course, the roles would have been reversed with a liberal nominee.
Both sides are politically motivated. The truth, which we don't know,
determines who participated in a smear campaign.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-08 15:01:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
You got
anything when both Congress an the President is being chicken hearted,
and the Courts made law on their own?
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
I was asking for examples of where the Supreme Court has in effect
become a legislative body, stepping in where politicians are too chicken
hearted to touch the issue.
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-08 16:03:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
You got
anything when both Congress an the President is being chicken hearted,
and the Courts made law on their own?
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
I was asking for examples of where the Supreme Court has in effect
become a legislative body, stepping in where politicians are too chicken
hearted to touch the issue.
How about Obamacare? Where in the constitution is it written anything about health care, or abortion for that matter?


"National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress' power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education"
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-08 17:49:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 17:31:25 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a
legislative body, making decisions on issues that
politicians are too chicken hearted to touch or
too divided to decide.
You got anything when both Congress an the President is being
chicken hearted, and the Courts made law on their own?
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
I was asking for examples of where the Supreme Court has in effect
become a legislative body, stepping in where politicians are too
chicken hearted to touch the issue.
How about Obamacare? Where in the constitution is it written anything
about health care, or abortion for that matter?
"National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S.
519 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in
which the Court upheld Congress' power to enact most provisions of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called
Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education"
I'm not following how this case is an example of the Supreme Court
acting like a legislative body, stepping in when politicians were to
chicken hearted to touch the issue.
Gary
2018-10-08 18:56:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 17:31:25 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
You got anything when both Congress an the President is being
chicken hearted, and the Courts made law on their own?
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
I was asking for examples of where the Supreme Court has in effect
become a legislative body, stepping in where politicians are too
chicken hearted to touch the issue.
How about Obamacare? Where in the constitution is it written anything
about health care, or abortion for that matter?
"National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S.
519 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in
which the Court upheld Congress' power to enact most provisions of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called
Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education"
I'm not following how this case is an example of the Supreme Court
acting like a legislative body, stepping in when politicians were to
chicken hearted to touch the issue.
I've not been keeping up with SCOTUS in many years, so I don't know any recent decisions.
However -- I do remember the most obvious decision that helped to keep their politician
friends from being thrown out of office. It was the 1954 Brown Vs Board of Education
decision.

The ACLU (and other communist groups) had been had been trying to force white people to
accept blacks as equals. With little if any success. The Northern states -- still
angry from the Civil War -- wanted to force white Southerners to accept blacks as equal.
But could not get anything passed through Congress. So ... they decided to skip
Congress and get their (bought and paid for) lackeys on the Court to solve the problem.
And ..... they did ! Although people had been reading the Constitution for almost
almost 200 years -- nobody had ever noticed some instructions about integrating public
schools. But that (blankey-blank pile of blank ) named Earl Warren discovered them ---
and gave us the decision. Even thought white Americans had enjoyed segregation for 300
years -- things changed.

Just a few Southern thoughts.
w***@gmail.com
2018-10-08 20:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
You got
anything when both Congress an the President is being chicken hearted,
and the Courts made law on their own?
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
I was asking for examples of where the Supreme Court has in effect
become a legislative body, stepping in where politicians are too chicken
hearted to touch the issue.
How about Obamacare? Where in the constitution is it written anything about health care, or abortion for that matter?
Where was it written that slaves were to be free people? Where was it written that women had the right to vote?
Post by b***@gmail.com
"National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress' power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education"
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-08 20:38:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
You got
anything when both Congress an the President is being chicken hearted,
and the Courts made law on their own?
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
I was asking for examples of where the Supreme Court has in effect
become a legislative body, stepping in where politicians are too chicken
hearted to touch the issue.
How about Obamacare? Where in the constitution is it written anything about health care, or abortion for that matter?
Where was it written that slaves were to be free people? Where was it written that women had the right to vote?
Women's right to vote is in the 19th amendment 1919. And the slaves were freed due to the 13th amendment. Those are written in hard core English and part of the constitution. But there isn't anything in there that pertains to health care or abortion. Not that I see.
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
"National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress' power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education"
w***@gmail.com
2018-10-08 20:39:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
The Supreme court has in a sense become a legislative body, making
decisions on issues that politicians are too chicken hearted to touch
or too divided to decide.
You got
anything when both Congress an the President is being chicken hearted,
and the Courts made law on their own?
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
I was asking for examples of where the Supreme Court has in effect
become a legislative body, stepping in where politicians are too chicken
hearted to touch the issue.
How about Obamacare? Where in the constitution is it written anything about health care, or abortion for that matter?
Where was it written that slaves were to be free people? Where was it written that women had the right to vote?
Women's right to vote is in the 19th amendment 1919. And the slaves were freed due to the 13th amendment. Those are written in hard core English and part of the constitution. But there isn't anything in there that pertains to health care or abortion. Not that I see.
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
"National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress' power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education"
Neither was there anything written about slaves and woman's right to vote in the original constitution!
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-08 21:23:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:03:39 AM UTC-6,
{snip}
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
How about Obamacare? Where in the constitution is it written
anything about health care, or abortion for that matter?
Where was it written that slaves were to be free people? Where
was it written that women had the right to vote?
Women's right to vote is in the 19th amendment 1919. And the slaves
were freed due to the 13th amendment. Those are written in hard
core English and part of the constitution. But there isn't anything
in there that pertains to health care or abortion. Not that I see.
Neither was there anything written about slaves and woman's right to
vote in the original constitution!
And it took a Constitutional Amendment to fix it. Bill is arguing the
Amendments are also needed for Obamacare and abortion. I think he's
wrong about that, but your examples aren't good counter arguments.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-08 21:17:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:03:39 AM UTC-6,
{snip}
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
How about Obamacare? Where in the constitution is it written
anything about health care, or abortion for that matter?
Where was it written that slaves were to be free people? Where
was it written that women had the right to vote?
Women's right to vote is in the 19th amendment 1919. And the slaves
were freed due to the 13th amendment. Those are written in hard core
English and part of the constitution. But there isn't anything in
there that pertains to health care or abortion. Not that I see.
Health care is covered by "to pay for [...] the general welfare"
(Article One, Section 8, Clause 1) and abortion by "nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law" (14th Amendment, Section 1).
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-08 21:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
{snip}
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Where in the constitution is it written anything about health care, or abortion for that matter?
Where was it written that slaves were to be free people?
13th Amendment.
Post by w***@gmail.com
Where was it written that women had the right to vote?
19th Amendment.
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-07 02:06:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Any pretext that SCOTUS is above politics should now be seen as a
fundamental flaw in our belief of checks and balances.
Does anyone really still believe that there might be fewer 5-4 decisions
in SCOTUS on the side of right wing politics?
The decisions will be more likely an honest interpretation of the
Constitution, as written, rather than an interpretation of the way
liberals (or now Socialists?) believe it should have been written.
The conservatives on the Court also interpret the Constitution they way
they believe it should have been written. Examples include invalidating
Obamacare, campaign finance laws, union dues, affirmative action and
anti-discrimination laws.
The Constitution is vague enough that all the justices can vote in
accordance with their desired political outcome while at the same time
claiming they are upholding the Constitution.
Post by El Castor
If
liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect more
senators, and select a better presidential candidate than crooked
Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Obama won and yet there was Garland.
Yes, the constitution is vague, only about 47 pages in this little book I have. But it's general enough you can read anything into it. I remember Bob Dole used to carry around a copy of the 10th amendment in his back pocket which said powers not delegated to the US by the constitution are reserved to the people. In other words, if it ain't written here it's none of the government's business.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-07 02:55:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Any pretext that SCOTUS is above politics should now be seen as
a fundamental flaw in our belief of checks and balances.
Does anyone really still believe that there might be fewer 5-4
decisions in SCOTUS on the side of right wing politics?
The decisions will be more likely an honest interpretation of
the Constitution, as written, rather than an interpretation of
the way liberals (or now Socialists?) believe it should have been
written.
The conservatives on the Court also interpret the Constitution they
way they believe it should have been written. Examples include
invalidating Obamacare, campaign finance laws, union dues,
affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws.
The Constitution is vague enough that all the justices can vote in
accordance with their desired political outcome while at the same
time claiming they are upholding the Constitution.
Post by El Castor
If liberals want a different constitution, then amend it, elect
more senators, and select a better presidential candidate than
crooked Hillary. Elections have consequences. You lost.
Obama won and yet there was Garland.
Yes, the constitution is vague, only about 47 pages in this little
book I have. But it's general enough you can read anything into it.
Bingo! Liberal and conservative judges read into it their respective
preferred political outcomes.
Post by b***@gmail.com
I
remember Bob Dole used to carry around a copy of the 10th amendment
in his back pocket which said powers not delegated to the US by the
constitution are reserved to the people. In other words, if it ain't
written here it's none of the government's business.
But, one of the powers written in there permits Congress "To make all
Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
foregoing Powers." What does "necessary and proper" mean?
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-07 23:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by b***@gmail.com
Yes, the constitution is vague, only about 47 pages in this little
book I have. But it's general enough you can read anything into it.
Bingo! Liberal and conservative judges read into it their respective
preferred political outcomes.
Post by b***@gmail.com
I
remember Bob Dole used to carry around a copy of the 10th amendment
in his back pocket which said powers not delegated to the US by the
constitution are reserved to the people. In other words, if it ain't
written here it's none of the government's business.
But, one of the powers written in there permits Congress "To make all
Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
foregoing Powers." What does "necessary and proper" mean?
"This "Necessary and Proper Clause" (sometimes also called the "Elastic Clause") grants Congress a set of so-called implied powers—that is, powers not explicitly named in the Constitution but assumed to exist due to their being necessary to implement the expressed powers that are named in Article I."
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-10-08 00:33:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by b***@gmail.com
Yes, the constitution is vague, only about 47 pages in this
little book I have. But it's general enough you can read anything
into it.
Bingo! Liberal and conservative judges read into it their
respective preferred political outcomes.
Post by b***@gmail.com
I remember Bob Dole used to carry around a copy of the 10th
amendment in his back pocket which said powers not delegated to
the US by the constitution are reserved to the people. In other
words, if it ain't written here it's none of the government's
business.
But, one of the powers written in there permits Congress "To make
all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers." What does "necessary and proper"
mean?
"This "Necessary and Proper Clause" (sometimes also called the
"Elastic Clause") grants Congress a set of so-called implied
powers—that is, powers not explicitly named in the Constitution but
assumed to exist due to their being necessary to implement the
expressed powers that are named in Article I."
It was rhetorical question. Your explanation tells us that "necessary
and proper" is vague, and permits judges to read into it their preferred
political outcomes.
CLOISTER
2018-10-07 21:47:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Any pretext that SCOTUS is above politics should now be seen as a
fundamental flaw in our belief of checks and balances.
Does anyone really still believe that there might be fewer 5-4 decisions
in SCOTUS on the side of right wing politics?
EVERY every justice in the Supreme Court got there by
political pull
Loading...