U.S. Elections: The Narcissist and the Nineteenth Amendment

[Ice Queen]

15 hours ago, Ormond said:

I think this is extremely oversimplified in both directions. I don't see Sanders as having no self-aggrandizing motives at all. He seems rather arrogant to me at times, which is not a trait I associate with being simply out to "serve the people." On the other hand, I think there is plenty in Clinton's past to show that she has many motives to serve others. I really can't see her advocacy for health care reform as being primarily "self-serving", for instance. I don't believe her only motive is personal ambition -- and I think the fact that personal ambition is PART of her motivation is something which is often unfairly condemned in women politicians and not in male ones. There is nothing wrong with having personal ambition as part of one's motivation in running for office. 

I agree. If she was completely in it for herself, she would have stayed in Boston instead of marrying Bill and moving to Arkansas, of all places, and then starting the Advocates for Children and Families there. That's not exactly the place to begin your evil takeover of the world. 

Her health care plan would have worked, according to the GAO. It was, as usual, the Republicans who shot it down without ever having read the proposal. 

18 hours ago, Ormond said:

Another thing to admire about Michelle Obama:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497817419/michelle-obama-trump-comments-have-shaken-me-to-my-core

 

 

I am really going to miss Michelle. What a classy lady. 

She says she doesn't want to run for office. I hope she changes her mind. She's the kind of person we need. 

15 hours ago, Zorral said:

Because, back in the day, our POTUSes and other high officials were almost entirely out of the wealthy classes who could afford to do politics at all.  As well the franchise was limited to their class alone -- people who actually worked for a living couldn't even vote unless the owned a certain amount of property.  The populisim of the more recently admitted western states (at that time Kentucky and Tennessee were considered 'west') began changing this -- Andrew Jackson, i.e. Jacksonian democracy, finished with the franchise for all white men, regardless of property or lack thereof.   But the idea of a career politician, i.e. someone who never held a job-job, as a negative, has never gone away.

Our Founding Fathers were the elite. This country wasn't founded on altruistic principles at all and they made sure to maintain the status quo for as long as possible. They kicked the can down the road on slavery for 80 years because they couldn't lose their economic lifeline. 

Among other things. The takeaway is that they were the 1% of the time.

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

What is your opinion on the expansive view of Government Regulatory power derived from Wickard?  A case that Scalia hung his hat on to discount State power to legalize Marijuana on a State by State basis.

(Scalia's inconsistency really pissed me off that time)

I support a rather expansive view of the Interstate Commerce Clause. So I don't have much of a problem with Wickard. 

By the way, I don't think the regulations at issue in Wickard were good. I'd say the best way to fight deflation would be through monetary and fiscal policy and not by trying to restrict the supply of commodities.

I agree that Scalia was being a hypocrite there. It seems the real legal principle there was: If hippies are going to be punished, then ICC is expansive. If hippies aren't involved, then not so much.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Depends on whether said action could plausibly affect interstate commerce. The fact of the matter is that Filburn's actions if allowed could affect the price of wheat. And deflation was a big problem during the Great Depression.

So, someone being responsible, someone choosing to take care of themselves opens themselves up to government regulation by being responsible and not buying fodder because they've grown it themselves?

Commerce is a sale.  No sale took place.  Certainly no "interstate commerce" took place.  This logic means if I choose to grow rather than buy tomatoes the federal government could ban my choice to grow tomatoes because my choice has the potential to affect "interstate commerce".  You really want national government with the power to ban home grown tomatoes because it choose to prop up commercial tomato growers?

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, someone being responsible, someone choosing to take care of themselves opens themselves up to government regulation by being responsible and not buying fodder because they've grown it themselves?

Commerce is a sale.  No sale took place.  Certainly no "interstate commerce" took place.  This logic means if I choose to grow rather than buy tomatoes the federal government could ban my choice to grow tomatoes because my choice has the potential to affect "interstate commerce".  You really want national government with the power to ban home grown tomatoes because it choose to prop up commercial tomatoe growers?

But there is a national wheat market is there not?

If guys like Filburn decide to produce wheat and use it for themselves, then that arguably drives down the price of wheat.

[Ice Queen]

30 minutes ago, LongRider said:

I see I need to study more what the terms civil libertarians and libertarians really mean as I'm afraid I don't.

 

And the 19th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.  Wyoming was the first state to grant women the right to vote, but if it had been left only to the states, how long would it have taken for all states to grant this right to women?  Too long. 

The Equal Rights Amendment STILL hasn't been ratified. That's 95 years since its first introduction. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

But there is a national wheat market is there not?

If guys like Filburn decide to produce wheat and use it for themselves, then that arguably drives down the price of wheat.

But if they aren't selling it... there is no "commerce" to regulate.  The real kicker in Wickard is that the farmer was denied a federal loan for having grown wheat that he didn't sell in excess of a limit placed on growth to prop up wheat prices.  

The farmer argued (rightly in my opinion) that if he didn't sell the wheat he didn't engage in commerce subject to regulation.  What really pisses me off is that the SCOTUS could have agreed with the farmer and simply held there was no obligation for the Federal Government to give him a loan.  Instead they went for the "Choosing to grow not buy makes you subject to regulation".

That is crap in my opinion.

[TrackerNeil]

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I can get behind thinking she's 'evil'...what else is a hawk? She's going to invade somewhere, innocent people in other parts of the world are going to die...does anyone doubt it?

If you truly think Hillary Clinton is evil, I suggest you do not have an adult understanding of evil.

[OldGimletEye]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But if they aren't selling it... there is no "commerce" to regulate.  The real kicker in Wickard is that the farmer was denied a federal loan for having grown wheat that he didn't sell in excess of a limit placed on growth to prop up wheat prices.  

The farmer argued (rightly in my opinion) that if he didn't sell the wheat he didn't engage in commerce subject to regulation.  What really pisses me off is that the SCOTUS could have agreed with the farmer and simply held there was no obligation for the Federal Government to give him a loan.  Instead they went for the "Choosing to grow not buy makes you subject to regulation".

That is crap in my opinion.

I'd be more sympathetic to the farmer's case if the commodities at issue weren't plausibly national ones. But, wheat is.

And, again, I don't think the regulations were good from a policy making perspective. That said, deflation was a serious serious problem during the Great Depression. And the during the Great Depression, they didn't know what we know now about fighting low inflation or deflation - well, everyone except the current Republican Party.

Also let me add: Supposing Wickard gets struck down. Then in your view can the 1964 Civil Rights Act be upheld?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'd be more sympathetic to the farmer's case if the commodities at issue weren't plausibly national ones. But, wheat is.

And, again, I don't think the regulations were good from a policy making perspective. That said, deflation was a serious serious problem during the Great Depression. And the during the Great Depression, they didn't know what we know now about fighting low inflation or deflation - well, everyone except the current Republican Party.

OGE,

From a legal perspective it is a huge stretch, in my opinion, from "the power to regulate interstate commerce" to "the power to punish those who choose to grow vegetables themselves instead of buying it commercially".  I'm not an originalist but on a textual basis that is a huge stretch with potential gigantic increases in power for the National Government.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

From a legal perspective it is a huge stretch, in my opinion, from "the power to regulate interstate commerce" to "the power to punish those who choose to grow vegetables themselves instead of buying it commercially".  I'm not an originalist but on a textual basis that is a huge stretch with potential gigantic increases in power for the National Government.

Well, congress is entitled to regulate commerce "among the several states". Is there any doubt that wheat is transported across state boundaries? That wheat is a commodity sold on a national level?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, briantw said:

The problem is that the majority of career politicians in Washington these days seem to be in it to serve themselves, make a ton of money, and support their rich friends and corporate interests rather than the electorate.  

Man there is so much to unpack from what you said yesterday, and I'm not sure if it's even worth the time. But let's start with a simple question. Why is Sanders not guilty of everything you just said? 

 

12 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Yeah, makes no sense to me. I want a statesman running my state, not an orange peel granted sentience by an insane and racist malfunctioning AI. 

Exactly! And besides, to accomplish your goals in politics usually requires you to eventually become a committee chairman. That tends to takes decades. 

[BloodRider]

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I can get behind thinking she's 'evil'...what else is a hawk? She's going to invade somewhere, innocent people in other parts of the world are going to die...does anyone doubt it? Realize that for much of the world that fact being a certainty based upon her outlook is pretty evil. For many Americans it's one of many considerations, one they've grown accustomed to and overwrite with grim fatalistic sagacity about the ways of the world and marginalizing phrases like 'intervention', and offset this with things like how she'll manage the economy and abortion and whatnot, but those offsets don't remotely help the people's who are going to be 'intervened' with. It's ever been thus for expansive super-powers, and you don't become one without embracing the idea that other deaths 'over there' matter less, but it's behaviour that is alarming when other nations do likewise. 

Neo-cons and Dubya goons have been supporting her for some time now. For a reason.

 

If Trump were reliably anti-intervention and less unstable...eh, hard to say. I still think he might harm more people with his domestic policies than HRC is likely to with her neo~~ism, but it would definitely be a harder call. But he's not, his combustibility might even make him several degrees worse (though he also might avoid foreign actions...who the fuck knows?) so it's a very easy call. But IMO any hawk with power is very likely to do a great deal of evil, whatever her record on child welfare. 

Trump may not be a hawk per se, but two things.  

1) As soon as ISIS tweaks his nose we are going in full force, and it will be a massive cf.  Look at how he goes scorched earth when he takes personal affront.  He already tells us that he takes ISIS and jihadist attacks personally.  IMO, he would basically use the Military like he uses twitter, his lawyers and his cronies.  Throw them into the fray to vent his anger.  Were I military, I'd be fucking terrified of a Trump presidency.  It may even be before if we get into another alliance with Putin there. (see point 2)

2) He has basically ceded our European foreign policy to Putin, who is a massive hawk.  The election of Trump is almost guaranteed to lead to war in Eastern Europe, with the very nasty possibility of it spreading.  Why?  Because Trump has told NATO - I back Putin, and I will not honor our agreement.  Especially if he were to enter into an agreement in Syria first.

To those who say his advisors and congress will never let him do that.  To that I say, ha.  Congress burned that bridge.  They fucked with the approval of was act because it was a political hot potato, and now it is not theirs to say anymore.  As for advisors.  There are no advisors.  I am no fan of Republicans, esp latter day neo-cons, but on military and foreign policy they have a deep bench of people who know their shit.  All of them are telling Trump to fuck off.  All that he has left to fill his cabinet are yes men and cronies.  Christie and Giuliani are not going to tell him no.

With Clinton I see no such inevitabilities.  Yes, there are probabilities, in some cases far too high for my liking.  But with Trump it's like a pancreatic cancer diagnosis.  You start thinking about how long you have got, not if you can survive.

 

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

LOL. Wasn't FDR the guy that appointed Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. And wasn't Hugo Black the guy that fought harder than just about anybody to get the Bill of Rights incorporated into the 14th Amendment.

Libertarians, aka neo-feudalist, can be awful funny sometimes.

And didn't FDR also appoint William Douglas to the court?

It's risible, to be sure.  But it's not for you or me.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well, congress is entitled to regulate commerce "among the several states". Is there any doubt that wheat is transported across state boundaries? That wheat is a commodity sold on a national level?

This discussion should probably be in the politics thread, but I am very interested in seeing the original opinion.  Instinctively, I am with Ser Scott on this.

[Ariadne23]

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

Realizing it was made by an employee in a workplace is an important nuance.  Charges don't need to filed as the loud revulsion by the public is filling that role.

I think the public's revulsion is in response to Trump's bald statement of his entitlement to sexually assault women. I don't think that would be any differently perceived if he'd said it at the zoo, the bar, or in an actual locker room. 

And what is changing as a result is that women who have said to themselves "maybe I gave him the wrong idea," or "maybe he misunderstood" no longer feel that way, thanks to Trump. The era of gaslighting women into thinking they are complicit in their own sexual assaults in maybe over. It feels pretty great.

On the other hand, what Trump & Billy Bush said that is particularly relevant to a workplace context were the comments about Arianne Zucker - it looks good, look at the legs, etc. And I doubt even 50 percent of people, especially men, think it's wrong, much less actionable, to say things like that to another man at work, and wouldn't expect much to change there. 

So I can see why you think the workplace context is relevant, but it's a much less enlightening angle, from this woman's perspective.

[OldGimletEye]

10 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

This discussion should probably be in the politics thread, but I am very interested in seeing the original opinion.  Instinctively, I am with Ser Scott on this.

You're probably right. But, when the issue of supporting Trump comes up, one of the reasons cited is because of supreme court appointments.

Now, I get that the original article cited was making the case that Trump would be worse than Hillary's appointments, but when when one insinuation of the article is that somehow liberals have been awful on civil liberties, it's extremely hard for me to hold my tongue. I probably should have, I guess.

So, I'll shut up about it now, and just be glad that even libertarians think Trump would be a disaster.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

You're probably right. But, when the issue of supporting Trump comes up, one of the reasons cited is because of supreme court appointments.

Now, I get that the original article cited was making the case that Trump would be worse than Hillary's appointments, but when when one insinuation of the article is that somehow liberals have been awful on civil liberties, it's extremely hard for me to hold my tongue. I probably should have, I guess.

So, I'll shut up about it now, and just be glad that even libertarians think Trump would be a disaster.

oh, don't hold your tongue!  I find this very fascinating. And I learned something new. I'd certainly be interested in continuing the conversation

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

20 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

You're probably right. But, when the issue of supporting Trump comes up, one of the reasons cited is because of supreme court appointments.

Now, I get that the original article cited was making the case that Trump would be worse than Hillary's appointments, but when when one insinuation of the article is that somehow liberals have been awful on civil liberties, it's extremely hard for me to hold my tongue. I probably should have, I guess.

So, I'll shut up about it now, and just be glad that even libertarians think Trump would be a disaster.

OGE,

I depends on how you view "civil liberties".  I see them as more than the laundry list in the BOR.  I believe that among them is the right to use my land as I see fit so long as that use is not a noxious interference upon my neighbor's use of their land and that it should, by and large, be allowed.  We should have the liberty to be free from Government interference regarding land use unless the use is noxious.  

Trump disagrees.  Trump loved the Kelo decision and tried to make money off of it.  I've been screaming about this at my idiot conservative friends who are using the SCOTUS as excuse to vote for Trump.  Most aren't listening.

[OldGimletEye]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

I depends on how you view "civil liberties".  I see them as more than the laundry list in the BOR.  I believe that among them is the right to use my land as I see fit so long as that use is not a noxious interference upon my neighbor's use of their land and that it should, by and large, be allowed.  We should have the liberty to be free from Government interference regarding land use unless the use is noxious.  

Trump disagrees.  Trump loved the Kelo decision and tried to make money off of it.  I've been screaming about this at my idiot conservative friends who are using the SCOTUS as excuse to vote for Trump.  Most aren't listening.

Perhaps we should take this to another thread as suggested.

I will say though that lot of libertarian types saw the 1964 Civil Right's act as a big old impingement on their "freedom". I'm not saying that property rights are not important. But, I tend not to worry about them as much, as I think those that have property are capable of defending their interest through the political process.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OGE,

I do see where you are coming from so perhaps it is a question of emphasis.  If you want to start the thread I'm game.