U.S. Politics: One NothingBurger with 100% Mos-Cow, Side of Orange Slices and a Banana Daiquiri, Please

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/8/2017 at 2:21 AM, dmc515 said:

This is the distinction between civil liberties and civil rights.  I apologize @OldGimletEye, I do not mean to talk down to you, but I feel this distinction needs to be clarified on here.  Civil liberties are protections from government action.  As in, the government will not infringe on my "free speech" (which has its own complications, but that's a whole other BOW).  Civil rights are protection for the government, or ones in which it's obligated to protect.  The latter begins with the process of incorporation, which - perhaps aprocyphally - started back in 1897.  

The 14th Amendment generally only applies to state actors and not to private actors, unless there is symbiotic relationship between a government actor and a private actor or something like that.

And while it’s great to stop states or government actors from abusing people, the fact of the matter is that private actors can be abusive. And this, in my opinion, is a flaw in the libertarian conception of “freedom”* which is based largely on the idea that mainly government needs to be restrained and that regulation or restrictions on the use of private property is a grave threat to freedom.

In a system, where people are mainly expected to provide for themselves through private markets, the potential for abuse, by private actors, can become a real problem. And this is the reason why the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not passed wholly pursuant to the 14th Amendment, but pursuant to the Commerce Clause in large part.

*As a side note, I remember when Rand Paul let it slip out that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And this is a reason, so called “libertarianism” has managed to get penned in on that little piece of paper I keep in my desk drawer, that has written in on the top, the words “Shit List”.

[LongRider]

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And while it’s great to stop states or government actors from abusing people, the fact of the matter is that private actors can be abusive. And this, in my opinion, is a flaw in the libertarian conception of “freedom”* which is based largely on the idea that mainly government needs to be restrained and that regulation or restrictions on the use of private property is a grave threat to freedom.

This is really important.  Even with the gov't having regs and policies in place to stop abuse it still happens.  The libertarian and conservative fantasy that private actors aren't abusive is so wrong.  The idea however, seems quite seductive and as long as one is a rich white guy there might be some truth to it. Be someone else tho, even a poor white male working stiff, for example, and the reality is different.  Unfortunately, too many people  of all types have swallowed this koolaid whole. 

[Mindwalker]

About the Trump/ Putin meeting:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/07/trump-handed-putin-a-stunning-victory-215353

[Free Northman Reborn]

7 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

About the Trump/ Putin meeting:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/07/trump-handed-putin-a-stunning-victory-215353

Wow. Such a long article to basically complain that Trump did not favor a liberal narrative in his engagements in Europe. Well sorry, liberals, Trump ain't one of you. I thought you knew that by now.

Time to remember that a loss to the "liberal" agenda is not a loss to all. Just to the liberals.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Wow. Such a long article to basically complain that Trump did not favor a liberal narrative in his engagements in Europe. Well sorry, liberals, Trump ain't one of you. I thought you knew that by now.

Time to remember that a loss to the "liberal" agenda is not a loss to all. Just to the liberals.

Oh so now opposing one of the biggest dictators on Earth is just a liberal thing? Cause I could have sworn I heard pretty much every Republican during the election campaign (not named Trump) say that Putin was a war criminal who needed to be dealt with. This is hardly what I would call putting a check on Putin.

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Wow. Such a long article to basically complain that Trump did not favor a liberal narrative in his engagements in Europe. Well sorry, liberals, Trump ain't one of you. I thought you knew that by now.

Time to remember that a loss to the "liberal" agenda is not a loss to all. Just to the liberals.

Really? Wasn't it Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney who said that Russia was the greatest threat to America? Pretty sure up until Trump, that was the conservative viewpoint. Here is an article from Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard following Trump/Putin meeting. The Weekly Standard isn't exactly a bulwark for liberal media.

Quote

If Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s readout of Donald Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Putin is a preview of the Trump administration’s approach to Russia, it’s going to be a rough three and a half years. In a diplomatic depantsing that will have repercussions far beyond Russia, Tillerson’s comments did more to further Russia’s interests than Russian propaganda outlets could have possibly hoped to accomplish themselves.

Tillerson told reporters that Trump and Putin “acknowledged the challenges of cyber threats and interference in the democratic processes of the United States and other countries.” Well then.

Vladimir Putin acknowledged generic “challenges” of unspecified “cyber threats” related to U.S. elections and those in other countries? Who cares? What Putin wouldn’t acknowledge was far more important: The Russians were the source of the cyber threats.

 

[LongRider]

The vibe I get from Trump and Putin is Trump sees Putin as some sort of rock star and Trump is the dazzled groupie who will do anything for a little attention from his idol.  ymmv of course, but that's how it seems to me.

[LongRider]

Here's an interesting follow up to something that happened during early voting last fall.  A woman from Iowa was arrested for voting fraud as she tried to vote for Trump twice because she was so upset because Candidate Trump had convinced her that so much vote rigging would deny him the Presidency.  

Quote

According to the Associated Press, Terri Lynn Rote, 57, entered her plea for the felony charge on June 27. Court documents state that lawyers affiliated with the case are recommending Rote face up two years of probation with community service on the side. 

Rote told police why she tried to vote more than once. She was convinced her first vote for Mr. Trump would be manipulated and changed to a vote for then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. According to her statement to the police, Rote believed Mr. Trump's claims about widespread election rigging. 

Who wants to bet she believes Trump when he lies about 3 million illegal votes for Clinton because his ego can't take the fact he did not get the popular vote.

[Kalbear]

On the government doing big projects - it's almost as if the government doesn't have massive funding windfalls like they did in the 50s and 60s, and for some reason we don't have trillions of dollars sitting around. 

A real mystery

[Week]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Wow. Such a long article to basically complain that Trump did not favor a liberal narrative in his engagements in Europe. Well sorry, liberals, Trump ain't one of you. I thought you knew that by now.

Time to remember that a loss to the "liberal" agenda is not a loss to all. Just to the liberals.

Egregious nepotism -- really any nepotism, but fuck seriously? -- is also a loss to all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/07/08/ivanka-trump-takes-her-fathers-seat-at-the-world-leaders-during-a-g-20-meeting/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_ivanka-800am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.fa81fc457454

Or as I saw for Andy Borowitz:

Quote

G20 Leaders Baffled by Unexplained Inclusion of Failed Shoe Salesperson

 

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said:

The vibe I get from Trump and Putin is Trump sees Putin as some sort of rock star and Trump is the dazzled groupie who will do anything for a little attention from his idol.  ymmv of course, but that's how it seems to me.

That's how I see it.  Trump is basically every Republican who thinks Putin is awesome because he talks super alpha manly man pictures with his shirt off riding horses and fishing.  That's the only reason. 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

The 14th Amendment generally only applies to state actors and not to private actors, unless there is symbiotic relationship between a government actor and a private actor or something like that.

And while it’s great to stop states or government actors from abusing people, the fact of the matter is that private actors can be abusive. And this, in my opinion, is a flaw in the libertarian conception of “freedom”* which is based largely on the idea that mainly government needs to be restrained and that regulation or restrictions on the use of private property is a grave threat to freedom.

The EPC was written to apply to state actors - very specific state actors.  But it's been applied by SCOTUS for all actors, including private.  That's the entire point of incorporation I was going on about.  The EPC is the entire basis for all anti-discrimination measures, and the 64 CRA.  Without the duty it compels the government to do we don't get Brown v. Board, we don't get the Warren Court, and this is a much different country.

ETA:  You're right that most, if not all, of the cases demanding the government protect civil rights relied on the Court's interpretation of the commerce clause, "the switch in time that saved nine," West Coast Hotel v Parrish, and the abolishment of the Lochner era.  However, it's myopic to attribute such decisions to the Commerce Clause, which was used as justification, rather than the EPC, which was the basis.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

About the Trump/ Putin meeting:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/07/trump-handed-putin-a-stunning-victory-215353

You know there's one aspect of this that kind of makes sense to me. The whole agreement not to meddle in one another's domestic affairs. I think that would be an agreeable outcome to this whole mess if both sides were sincere. Of course, neither side is sincere, as Trump benefited from Russian meddling and the Russians are still reaping the benefits it seems.

 It never ceases to amaze me how little apparent understanding Trump has regarding the Presidency and the limit of its' powers. The whole "The United States will move on from election hacking issues with no accountability or consequences" thing. Like he gets to decide that. He and his administration can certainly push that narrative and aid it, but that's not the same thing. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said:

The vibe I get from Trump and Putin is Trump sees Putin as some sort of rock star and Trump is the dazzled groupie who will do anything for a little attention from his idol.  ymmv of course, but that's how it seems to me.

It's deeper than that, methinks. Putin rules over a government that works openly with the oligarchy. That has no restraints or rules that protect the citizenry from either the government or the oligarchy. That has no Free Press to question the decisions that this system makes. That in fact completely controls the Press and the narrative that the public is fed. Putin is what Trump wants to be. 

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

About the Trump/ Putin meeting:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/07/trump-handed-putin-a-stunning-victory-215353

He just handed over world domination, including that of the US, to Putin in plain sight of the entire world.  WTF!!!!!!!! while letting his daughter without any experience, clearance, or position play him at the G20 meeting.  This. Is. Insane.

For the orange though, it's merely partial payback for the millions he owes Russia, Putin still has everything he holds over Trump to make him do his will.

Gads, what a farkin' trainwreck the libertarians, Kochs, rethugs, etc. have created -- and their supporters enabled them.  It's just about impossible to believe, except it has happened.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

He just handed over world domination, including that of the US, to Putin in plain sight of the entire world.  

He's certainly making it easier, but he simply does not have the power to truly do that.

[Free Northman Reborn]

26 minutes ago, Zorral said:

He just handed over world domination, including that of the US, to Putin in plain sight of the entire world.  WTF!!!!!!!! while letting his daughter without any experience, clearance, or position play him at the G20 meeting.  This. Is. Insane.

For the orange though, it's merely partial payback for the millions he owes Russia, Putin still has everything he holds over Trump to make him do his will.

Gads, what a farkin' trainwreck the libertarians, Kochs, rethugs, etc. have created -- and their supporters enabled them.  It's just about impossible to believe, except it has happened.

 

Drama queen much? It's not quite the armageddon you make it out to be.

Really, what is this terrible fear people have of Putin? Putin's focus has primarily been, and remains, to bring his country back from the brink of the collapse it faced at the turn of the millenium, and having it take its place as a great power in the world. Not as the dominant power, but as a great power, in a multipolar world alongside the likes of the US, Germany, Britain, France and increasingly the likes of China and India as well.

This bogeyman image of him liberals hold up as something to scare us with is ridiculous. The US and Russia together can achieve far more than if they try and hamper each other's efforts.

EDIT

Not just liberals, I have to add. Also senile old farts like John Mccain, and conservative warhawks stuck in a long gone paradigm of the capitalist West vs the Communist USSR. Communism is dead. And that was the main threat Russia presented to us.

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Drama queen much? It's not quite the armageddon you make it out to be.

Really, what is this terrible fear people have of Putin? Putin's focus has primarily been, and remains, to bring his country back from the brink of the collapse it faced at the turn of the millenium, and having it take its place as a great power in the world. Not as the dominant power, but as a great power, in a multipolar world alongside the likes of the US, Germany, Britain, France and increasingly the likes of China and India as well.

This bogeyman image of him liberals hold up as something to scare us with is ridiculous. The US and Russia together can achieve far more than if they try and hamper each other's efforts.

EDIT

Not just liberals, I have to add. Also senile old farts like John Mccain, and conservative warhawks stuck in a long gone paradigm of the capitalist West vs the Communist USSR. Communism is dead. And that was the main threat Russia presented to us.

I agree it's quite hyperbolic to say Trump handed over world domination.  I also agree that there's some exaggeration on the left about the threat Russia poses.  But that's part of the problem.  Putin is a two-bit despot that has overplayed his hand time and time again.  He is, like you say, singularly focused on reasserting Russian influence in the world.  And these efforts should be countered at every turn.  The US and Russia can never "together achieve far more" with a leader that relies on both tyrannical tactics and infantile posturing.  

That's not a leader any country, and especially not ours, should be interested in cooperating with.  Because you'll never actually get anything out of a decision maker that's not only untrustworthy but has repeatedly demonstrated his interests directly align with the opposite of our own.  And that's not even considering the fact he now actively and brazenly attempts to influence our electoral process, which it is not an overstatement in the slightest to call infringing on our sovereignty.  I thought conservatives were supposed to be realists.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

24 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Really, what is this terrible fear people have of Putin? Putin's focus has primarily been, and remains, to bring his country back from the brink of the collapse it faced at the turn of the millenium, and having it take its place as a great power in the world. Not as the dominant power, but as a great power, in a multipolar world alongside the likes of the US, Germany, Britain, France and increasingly the likes of China and India as well.

This bogeyman image of him liberals hold up as something to scare us with is ridiculous. The US and Russia together can achieve far more than if they try and hamper each other's efforts.

 By making himself one of the richest men in the world, while his countrymen starve. By perverting and subverting any sort of Free Press that was just beginning to take hold after the fall of the Soviet Union. By utilizing the most brutal forms of spycraft employed by the KGB up to and including poisoning and assassination. 

 Russia has no interest in working with the U.S. other than attempting to make the U.S. look more like Russia, so that the comparisons aren't as stark. You'd have to be a slack-jawed moron not to recognize this. And you'd have to hate democracy to support or defend this sort of oligarchal dictatorship.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I thought conservatives were supposed to be realists.  

Is this a joke?  Today's American conservatives rely heavily on magical thinking.  They aren't realists in the least.