Midterm Elections

[Perspective]

Summits are photo opportunities. Nothing more. The only successful Summits in the past 40 years were IMHO the Camp David Accords (Carter/Begin/Sadat) and Reykjavik (Reagan/Gorbachev). If I had to rate these, it would run an 8. The rest were mere zeros

Some of the reasons I supported President Trump (R-abid Orangutan) and his actions that I would consider"successes"

1) Originalist SCOTUS judges.

2) Appointment of replacement judges. Yes, some will say the ABA calls these nominees UNQUALIFIED!!! Considering how often these present judges are overturned, anyone would be better than many on the bench today. ABA's shenanigans are more in the vein of bitter sour grapes than fine wine of truth.

3) Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital (as Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama had, and never did anything) and finally moving the Embassy there.

4) NATO spending. Yes, even NATO spokespersons have said Trumps push to have NATO members contribute to the level everyone agreed to some time ago is working.

There are other things that admittedly are not so good - tariff/trade, etc, but there are still 2 years left to go, possibly another 4, and we'll eventually see where it all ends up. Generally speaking anyone under 40 won't clearly remember the environment during Reagan's first 2 years in office. (No, Trump is not Reagan...pleez) The same poisonous atmosphere existed then as it does today. Reagan was going to push the button. Reagan did this and that. Nothing here is new, however it was the Reagan revolution that gave us the collapse of the Soviet Union, interest rates that went from 18% to 10%, and an inflation rate back in the 2-3 percent range.  It could be reasonably argued that during the term of Richard Nixon things were outright revolutionary what with college kids being shot by the National Guard, and gigantic protests against the war. What did Nixon also bring? D?tente with China. The EPA, and other positive changes during what would be considered a "Failed presidency".

Time will tell, as it did with other Presidents.

Interesting priorities.

Originalist theory is fun to mock, for too many reason to document here. What the folks writing a law were thinking at the time, is influential in determining how an unclear term or phrase should be interpreted, but it is not dispositive. The argument is, if you want a law to be read a certain way, write it that way.

 

[fortune11]

Rank the greatest threats to our national security:

steel and aluminum imports
Mexican and central Americans entering the US illegally
Hillary Clinton's private server
Russia and Putin

Our leaders lying to the American people are a bigger national security threat than the antics of some 2 bit dictator.

Remember the Pentagon Papers? The classified documents the Rand employee stole and sent to the press?

The Pentagon Papers revealed that the US government knew for years the Vietnam War could not be won and was desperately finding a way out with our credibility intact. At the same time, they told us we were winning the war and victory was just around the corner. Yes, you heard that right, tens of thousands of American kids (mostly poor and minority) were gettiing sent to die by a government who knew the war was hopeless.

The American people have a right to know the truth about what the governemnt is doing even if it takes a crime to bring the information to light.  As they said at the time, the American people paid for the classified Pentagon Papers with the blood of 48,000 of their kids.

The older you get, the more you KNOW you absolutely CANNOT trust what politicians say, from ANY party. Their number one priority is their own job.

the older you get, the more likely you are to watch fox news and keep refreshing drudge report on your work computer every few minutes

 

[Ready2Downsize]

Rank the greatest threats to our national security:

steel and aluminum imports
Mexican and central Americans entering the US illegally
Hillary Clinton's private server
Russia and Putin

Our leaders lying to the American people are a bigger national security threat than the antics of some 2 bit dictator.

Remember the Pentagon Papers? The classified documents the Rand employee stole and sent to the press?

The Pentagon Papers revealed that the US government knew for years the Vietnam War could not be won and was desperately finding a way out with our credibility intact. At the same time, they told us we were winning the war and victory was just around the corner. Yes, you heard that right, tens of thousands of American kids (mostly poor and minority) were gettiing sent to die by a government who knew the war was hopeless.

The American people have a right to know the truth about what the governemnt is doing even if it takes a crime to bring the information to light.  As they said at the time, the American people paid for the classified Pentagon Papers with the blood of 48,000 of their kids.

The older you get, the more you KNOW you absolutely CANNOT trust what politicians say, from ANY party. Their number one priority is their own job.

the older you get, the more likely you are to watch fox news and keep refreshing drudge report on your work computer every few minutes

And how do you know that?


I'm no spring chicken and I NEVER tune into fox news or read the druge report...?????? EVER. In fact I think I've never seen any druge reports.


Some of us rather plant some new flowers when the old ones start to wither than waste time with propaganda from either side.


Some of us rather look at pinterest, shop on etsy, waste our time at Hobby Lobby, Michaels or Joann's and make some craft stuff and don't even have the tv on. No news on the radio either. Just whatever we got on our phones to keep us company.

Some of us are finding it comical and sad how much time is being wasted on being bitter. Some of us think you'd be better off tuning out of the propaganda and enjoy life before it passes you by.


Not you though.

I wonder if all the people paying taxes to support all the people who sit at home doing nothing would suddenly say WTH? Why am I working all day every day to support these people who do nothing and I'm not doing it anymore.

The entire system would fall apart. So thank you for supporting the system. Without you, the republicans would cease to exist because everyone would want to be a democrat and get everything for free from the government. Oh but wait............ that couldn't happen, could it?

So do keep working, both the dems and the GOP need to keep things going.

 

[fortune11]

I honestly cannot figure out what you really mean to say there - maybe you don't watch tv good for you.  but the stats are the stats -- average age of fox new watcher is well into the 60s, and skews even higher for the propaganda shows

but the essence of right wing-ism boils down to deep-seated grudges and hardened views.  notice I haven't used the word "conservative" anymore because it is oxymoronic to apply it now to people who support trump's policies. 

relying too much on anecdotes as opposed to hard data.  this is why the people most rabidly against immigration are found in states with the least amount of it.  I could go on and on. 

when you rant and rave against people who you think are leaching off from people like yourselves , have you stopped to look at the data -- as to what party these leachers belong to ? and what states they live in  ?

and have you thought about the wasteful spending in defense where w e are throwing away 13,000 dollars on coffee warmers in planes ?  ceo pay ? corruption on corporate boards , list is long .

anyways I do want to acknowledge what is really the sticking point -- many of the right wingers here are small business owners -- and they believe in " I did build that" , notwithstanding the support structure around them that made it possible.  I do understand that many of you are angry at the nanny state of CA.  Most democrats are w-2 earners. 

but again, look at things objectively -- many of you, are hailing trump for the stock market gains.  take away the top 5-6 tech companies and the market is actually DOWN for the year .  Where are these tech companies ?  which environment gave birth to them ? which environment gave you civil rights , gay rights ,  clean air and water. 

Again, think objectively and look at actual data ...

 

[Happiness]

Summits are photo opportunities. Nothing more. The only successful Summits in the past 40 years were IMHO the Camp David Accords (Carter/Begin/Sadat) and Reykjavik (Reagan/Gorbachev). If I had to rate these, it would run an 8. The rest were mere zeros

Some of the reasons I supported President Trump (R-abid Orangutan) and his actions that I would consider"successes"

1) Originalist SCOTUS judges.

2) Appointment of replacement judges. Yes, some will say the ABA calls these nominees UNQUALIFIED!!! Considering how often these present judges are overturned, anyone would be better than many on the bench today. ABA's shenanigans are more in the vein of bitter sour grapes than fine wine of truth.

3) Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital (as Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama had, and never did anything) and finally moving the Embassy there.

4) NATO spending. Yes, even NATO spokespersons have said Trumps push to have NATO members contribute to the level everyone agreed to some time ago is working.

There are other things that admittedly are not so good - tariff/trade, etc, but there are still 2 years left to go, possibly another 4, and we'll eventually see where it all ends up. Generally speaking anyone under 40 won't clearly remember the environment during Reagan's first 2 years in office. (No, Trump is not Reagan...pleez) The same poisonous atmosphere existed then as it does today. Reagan was going to push the button. Reagan did this and that. Nothing here is new, however it was the Reagan revolution that gave us the collapse of the Soviet Union, interest rates that went from 18% to 10%, and an inflation rate back in the 2-3 percent range.  It could be reasonably argued that during the term of Richard Nixon things were outright revolutionary what with college kids being shot by the National Guard, and gigantic protests against the war. What did Nixon also bring? D?tente with China. The EPA, and other positive changes during what would be considered a "Failed presidency".

Time will tell, as it did with other Presidents.

Interesting priorities.

Originalist theory is fun to mock, for too many reason to document here.

Mocking those you disagree with. Isn't that what the Dems accused Trump of during the 2016 campaign?

 

[Perspective]

Summits are photo opportunities. Nothing more. The only successful Summits in the past 40 years were IMHO the Camp David Accords (Carter/Begin/Sadat) and Reykjavik (Reagan/Gorbachev). If I had to rate these, it would run an 8. The rest were mere zeros

Some of the reasons I supported President Trump (R-abid Orangutan) and his actions that I would consider"successes"

1) Originalist SCOTUS judges.

2) Appointment of replacement judges. Yes, some will say the ABA calls these nominees UNQUALIFIED!!! Considering how often these present judges are overturned, anyone would be better than many on the bench today. ABA's shenanigans are more in the vein of bitter sour grapes than fine wine of truth.

3) Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital (as Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama had, and never did anything) and finally moving the Embassy there.

4) NATO spending. Yes, even NATO spokespersons have said Trumps push to have NATO members contribute to the level everyone agreed to some time ago is working.

There are other things that admittedly are not so good - tariff/trade, etc, but there are still 2 years left to go, possibly another 4, and we'll eventually see where it all ends up. Generally speaking anyone under 40 won't clearly remember the environment during Reagan's first 2 years in office. (No, Trump is not Reagan...pleez) The same poisonous atmosphere existed then as it does today. Reagan was going to push the button. Reagan did this and that. Nothing here is new, however it was the Reagan revolution that gave us the collapse of the Soviet Union, interest rates that went from 18% to 10%, and an inflation rate back in the 2-3 percent range.  It could be reasonably argued that during the term of Richard Nixon things were outright revolutionary what with college kids being shot by the National Guard, and gigantic protests against the war. What did Nixon also bring? D?tente with China. The EPA, and other positive changes during what would be considered a "Failed presidency".

Time will tell, as it did with other Presidents.

Interesting priorities.

Originalist theory is fun to mock, for too many reason to document here.

Mocking those you disagree with. Isn't that what the Dems accused Trump of during the 2016 campaign?

You can't see me, but I'm nodding my head, again...

I'm not mocking a person, and I didn't even mock the theory here - just shared one reason why it shouldn't be worshiped. But, keep up the false equivalencies. They're never ending.

 

[Happiness]

Rank the greatest threats to our national security:

steel and aluminum imports
Mexican and central Americans entering the US illegally
Hillary Clinton's private server
Russia and Putin

Our leaders lying to the American people are a bigger national security threat than the antics of some 2 bit dictator.

Remember the Pentagon Papers? The classified documents the Rand employee stole and sent to the press?

The Pentagon Papers revealed that the US government knew for years the Vietnam War could not be won and was desperately finding a way out with our credibility intact. At the same time, they told us we were winning the war and victory was just around the corner. Yes, you heard that right, tens of thousands of American kids (mostly poor and minority) were gettiing sent to die by a government who knew the war was hopeless.

The American people have a right to know the truth about what the governemnt is doing even if it takes a crime to bring the information to light.  As they said at the time, the American people paid for the classified Pentagon Papers with the blood of 48,000 of their kids.

The older you get, the more you KNOW you absolutely CANNOT trust what politicians say, from ANY party. Their number one priority is their own job.

the older you get, the more likely you are to watch fox news and keep refreshing drudge report on your work computer every few minutes

I wonder if all the people paying taxes to support all the people who sit at home doing nothing would suddenly say WTH? Why am I working all day every day to support these people who do nothing and I'm not doing it anymore.

The entire system would fall apart. So thank you for supporting the system. Without you, the republicans would cease to exist because everyone would want to be a democrat and get everything for free from the government. Oh but wait............ that couldn't happen, could it?

"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

- Margaret Thatcher

 

[Perspective]

I honestly cannot figure out what you really mean to say there - maybe you don't watch tv good for you.  but the stats are the stats -- average age of fox new watcher is well into the 60s, and skews even higher for the propaganda shows

but the essence of right wing-ism boils down to deep-seated grudges and hardened views.  notice I haven't used the word "conservative" anymore because it is oxymoronic to apply it now to people who support trump's policies. 

relying too much on anecdotes as opposed to hard data.  this is why the people most rabidly against immigration are found in states with the least amount of it.  I could go on and on. 

when you rant and rave against people who you think are leaching off from people like yourselves , have you stopped to look at the data -- as to what party these leachers belong to ? and what states they live in  ?

and have you thought about the wasteful spending in defense where w e are throwing away 13,000 dollars on coffee warmers in planes ?  ceo pay ? corruption on corporate boards , list is long .

anyways I do want to acknowledge what is really the sticking point -- many of the right wingers here are small business owners -- and they believe in " I did build that" , notwithstanding the support structure around them that made it possible.  I do understand that many of you are angry at the nanny state of CA.  Most democrats are w-2 earners. 

but again, look at things objectively -- many of you, are hailing trump for the stock market gains.  take away the top 5-6 tech companies and the market is actually DOWN for the year .  Where are these tech companies ?  which environment gave birth to them ? which environment gave you civil rights , gay rights ,  clean air and water. 

Again, think objectively and look at actual data ...

When Trump started to roll through the primaries, I began learning about InfoWars, Breitbart, Fox News, et al. It was eye opening, to say the least. I'll listen to Fox News and Fox Business in the car occasionally, just to hear some of the nonsense half of this country embraces.

 

[Happiness]

But, keep up the false equivalencies. They're never ending.

ad hominem!!!! 

 

[fortune11]

==========================================
When Trump started to roll through the primaries, I began learning about InfoWars, Breitbart, Fox News, et al. It was eye opening, to say the least. I'll listen to Fox News and Fox Business in the car occasionally, just to hear some of the nonsense half of this country embraces.
==========================================


I think this "nonsense embracing" population is more like 25-30%  --- but they have an oversized influence because

1.  they vote religiously (good for them) and have easier voting access (unfair compared to minorities)

2. they are spread out in rural areas with disproportionate representation -- have people seen these population growth projections where 30% of the states will have 70% of the senators in the next 10 years ?

this "rule of the minority " is what will lead to the breakup of our union if the elections continue to have a wide disparity between the popular vote versus number of seats won 

 

[Perspective]

But, keep up the false equivalencies. They're never ending.

ad hominem!!!! 

Not exactly. I'm identifying the logical fallacy in the argument, not attacking the messenger personally in order to discount the argument.

To the points above about "all politicians lie." Well, sure, generally that's a fair statement, but not in the Trump context. The magnitude and quantity of patently false statements on a near daily basis is unprecedented in my lifetime from a US president. That's the difference here. Trump is a despicable human being, both in his personal life, business life, and political life. Even if you love every policy he's pushing, no reasonable person can dispute this.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

But, keep up the false equivalencies. They're never ending.

ad hominem!!!! 

You are using the term "ad hominem" wrong...that point was to criticize the use of false equivalencies...not a personal attack on you.

But it is a common tactic of Trumpers...to deflect and then claim that the other side is attacking them personally.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

==========================================
When Trump started to roll through the primaries, I began learning about InfoWars, Breitbart, Fox News, et al. It was eye opening, to say the least. I'll listen to Fox News and Fox Business in the car occasionally, just to hear some of the nonsense half of this country embraces.
==========================================


I think this "nonsense embracing" population is more like 25-30%  --- but they have an oversized influence because

1.  they vote religiously (good for them) and have easier voting access (unfair compared to minorities)

2. they are spread out in rural areas with disproportionate representation -- have people seen these population growth projections where 30% of the states will have 70% of the senators in the next 10 years ?

this "rule of the minority " is what will lead to the breakup of our union if the elections continue to have a wide disparity between the popular vote versus number of seats won

Yup and that we have electoral systems that puts an emphasis on geography over population. 

 

[Perspective]

[Originalist theory is fun to mock, for too many reason to document here. What the folks writing a law were thinking at the time, is influential in determining how an unclear term or phrase should be interpreted, but it is not dispositive. The argument is, if you want a law to be read a certain way, write it that way.]

I'll add, the recent cases interpreting the First Amendment to allow "speech" by entities (companies), not persons, is further proof that "originalist" is just an opaque alternative for "conservative." This First Amendment is being used in novel ways by conservative jurists to arrive at their desired outcomes.

It's funny, because it's both "activist" judging which conservatives decry, and it's not "originalist" interpretation, which conservatives contend an adherence.

If anyone's interested in a LONG informative book on this latter topic: We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights
https://www.amazon.com/We-Corporations-American-Businesses-Rights/dp/0871407124/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1532121240&sr=1-1&keywords=we+the+corporations

 

[fortune11]

But, keep up the false equivalencies. They're never ending.

ad hominem!!!! 

You are using the term "ad hominem" wrong...that point was to criticize the use of false equivalencies...not a personal attack on you.

But it is a common tactic of Trumpers...to deflect and then claim that the other side is attacking them personally.

Yes , I was also confused by this . Perspective in no way personally attacked .

But remember these are tactics similar to what Trump employs himself ?- projection

 

[fortune11]

[Originalist theory is fun to mock, for too many reason to document here. What the folks writing a law were thinking at the time, is influential in determining how an unclear term or phrase should be interpreted, but it is not dispositive. The argument is, if you want a law to be read a certain way, write it that way.]

I'll add, the recent cases interpreting the First Amendment to allow "speech" by entities (companies), not persons, is further proof that "originalist" is just an opaque alternative for "conservative." This First Amendment is being used in novel ways by conservative jurists to arrive at their desired outcomes.

It's funny, because it's both "activist" judging which conservatives decry, and it's not "originalist" interpretation, which conservatives contend an adherence.

Exactly

Btw, does anyone know what the founding fathers thought about abortion ?

Evangelicals know ?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

[Originalist theory is fun to mock, for too many reason to document here. What the folks writing a law were thinking at the time, is influential in determining how an unclear term or phrase should be interpreted, but it is not dispositive. The argument is, if you want a law to be read a certain way, write it that way.]

I'll add, the recent cases interpreting the First Amendment to allow "speech" by entities (companies), not persons, is further proof that "originalist" is just an opaque alternative for "conservative." This First Amendment is being used in novel ways by conservative jurists to arrive at their desired outcomes.

It's funny, because it's both "activist" judging which conservatives decry, and it's not "originalist" interpretation, which conservatives contend an adherence.

Exactly

Btw, does anyone know what the founding fathers thought about abortion ?

Evangelicals know ?

The originalist argument is also silly because the concept of judicial review by Supreme Court was established by Mabury v. Madison in 1803, while nearly all of the FF were still alive and active.  Most of them (Jefferson excluded) were fine with it.  That's why we have 215 years of Constitutional Law.  Those interpretations and analysis are just as important as the Constitution itself.

 

[Perspective]

[Originalist theory is fun to mock, for too many reason to document here. What the folks writing a law were thinking at the time, is influential in determining how an unclear term or phrase should be interpreted, but it is not dispositive. The argument is, if you want a law to be read a certain way, write it that way.]

I'll add, the recent cases interpreting the First Amendment to allow "speech" by entities (companies), not persons, is further proof that "originalist" is just an opaque alternative for "conservative." This First Amendment is being used in novel ways by conservative jurists to arrive at their desired outcomes.

It's funny, because it's both "activist" judging which conservatives decry, and it's not "originalist" interpretation, which conservatives contend an adherence.

Exactly

Btw, does anyone know what the founding fathers thought about abortion ?

Evangelicals know ?

You're only superficially scratching the surface. Try going down the originalist road on any word or phrase. It only leads to more questions, not answers. Religious texts don't address abortion, much less the framers and the Constitution/Amendments.

What are "arms" in the 2nd Amendment? If we're to stick to the originalist view, then current US citizens should only be allowed to have weaponry available at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. Is military weaponry "arms"? Where's the line?

"Shall not be infringed"? At all? Kids can buy guns? Convicts? If I'm using an "arm" to harm someone, shall my right to use it at that moment not be infringed at all?

Originalists are silly. I have a lot of Federalist Society friends who love to argue this stuff. They're wrong.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

[Originalist theory is fun to mock, for too many reason to document here. What the folks writing a law were thinking at the time, is influential in determining how an unclear term or phrase should be interpreted, but it is not dispositive. The argument is, if you want a law to be read a certain way, write it that way.]

I'll add, the recent cases interpreting the First Amendment to allow "speech" by entities (companies), not persons, is further proof that "originalist" is just an opaque alternative for "conservative." This First Amendment is being used in novel ways by conservative jurists to arrive at their desired outcomes.

It's funny, because it's both "activist" judging which conservatives decry, and it's not "originalist" interpretation, which conservatives contend an adherence.

Exactly

Btw, does anyone know what the founding fathers thought about abortion ?

Evangelicals know ?

You're only superficially scratching the surface. Try going down the originalist road on any word or phrase. It only leads to more questions, not answers. Religious texts don't address abortion, much less the framers and the Constitution/Amendments.

What are "arms" in the 2nd Amendment? If we're to stick to the originalist view, then current US citizens should only be allowed to have weaponry available at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. Is military weaponry "arms"? Where's the line?

"Shall not be infringed"? At all? Kids can buy guns? Convicts? If I'm using an "arm" to harm someone, shall my right to use it at that moment not be infringed at all?

Originalists are silly. I have a lot of Federalist Society friends who love to argue this stuff. They're wrong.

It's basically a way those in the majority and in power to maintain the status quo.  DON'T LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW...WE CARE ABOUT WHAT A BUNCH OF WHITE OLD MEN THOUGHT IN 1781!

 

[Perspective]

Educated men, many devoutly religious, most who owned and enslaved other human beings, and treated women as property.

#MAGA!