US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The thing in terms of this issues is that Kavanagh has established a long record in action as well as writen opinion, that justices have the right and obligation to go looking for issues they themselves believe make a likely Constitutional examination even when there are no legal cases about such matters pending anywhere.  This is particularly important as Kavanagh has written copiously since at least the end of the 1990's that no sitting POTUS should be or can be sworn, indicted or anything for criminal behaviors.  That is his interpretation of the Constitution.

Zorral,

I absolutely understand your objections to Kavanagh and, in my view, anyone nominated by Trump is tainted.  However, when we are talking about the SCOTUS as a whole I strongly doubt just having been nominated by a Republican President is enough to have those Justices agree to some bullshit reinterpretation of either the Pardon Power or the 22nd Amendment.  

I maintain that if Trump were to try to stay in power beyond the end of a second term (God I hope there will be no second term) he would have to have the US military somehow personally loyal to him.  And while the military, on average, is more conservative than the US population that, in and of itself, is not a gurantee of personal loyalty to Trump.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

No direct election of senators is how it was before the 17th amendment.  How making them Lords is going to help our political catastrophe is impossible to fathom.

 

Understood.  I seriously doubt removing the 17th is a viable option at this point.  I'd be shocked if it got out of Congress and doubly shocked if 38 State legislatures would ratify such an amendment.

[Zorral]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Zorral,

I absolutely understand your objections to Kavanagh and, in my view, anyone nominated by Trump is tainted.  However, when we are talking about the SCOTUS as a whole I strongly doubt just having been nominated by a Republican President is enough to have those Justices agree to some bullshit reinterpretation of either the Pardon Power or the 22nd Amendment.  

I maintain that if Trump were to try to stay in power beyond the end of a second term (God I hope there will be no second term) he would have to have the US military somehow personally loyal to him.  And while the military, on average, is more conservative than the US population that, in and of itself, is not a gurantee of personal loyalty to Trump.

Yah, put your faith in the military to save the republic.  You know from history and current events throughout the 20th and 21st century, how that ends don't you?  If not, hint: Arab Spring, for a single instance.  The whole history of Latin America, almost.  It's something that so far has never happened in the US.  But if it does one cannot reasonably expect a different outcome than other places.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Zorral said:

Yah, put your faith in the military to save the republic.  You know from history and current events throughout the 20th and 21st century, how that ends don't you?  If not, hint: Arab Spring, for a single instance.  The whole history of Latin America, almost.  It's something that so far has never happened in the US.  But if it does one cannot reasonably expect a different outcome than other places.

 

Zorral,

I disagree.  The US military has a strong allegance to the Constitution, not to a particular person in the White House.  Trump would need to purge the high officer ranks and replace them all with people personally loyal to him to have any hope of staying in office past the close of a second term.  Even then, I'm confident such a move would lead to civil war and a split among the US Military as those who supported the coup and those who fought it came to blows.  That is a terrifying prospect given the power we have there.

 

 

 

[Frog Eater]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

No direct election of senators is how it was before the 17th amendment.  How making them Lords is going to help our political catastrophe is impossible to fathom.

Also the argument that not all people who vote for the orange nazi are racists -- then how in the world did he get elected in the first place?  And don't say it's because the left talks about racism and that makes voters so mad they decide to vote for a racist.  You see what kind of argument that is, don't you?

 

You cant say that everyone who voted Republican is a racist. Many Republican voters voted for Trump because of the Supreme Court, or because of their pro-life leanings, or their opposition to Hillary Clinton herself or any of a myriad of other reasons. 

I would even venture to say that most Republican voters in the 2016 election held their nose and voted for Trump, even through they disliked him as a person, they support the Second Amendment, believe in a conservative Supreme Court, and support a pro-life agenda. 

I dont know anyone who loves Trump, but I know plenty of people who voted Republican, and will again in 2020. 

Calling half the country racist seriously dilutes the term. 

[Frog Eater]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Zorral,

I absolutely understand your objections to Kavanagh and, in my view, anyone nominated by Trump is tainted.  However, when we are talking about the SCOTUS as a whole I strongly doubt just having been nominated by a Republican President is enough to have those Justices agree to some bullshit reinterpretation of either the Pardon Power or the 22nd Amendment.  

I maintain that if Trump were to try to stay in power beyond the end of a second term (God I hope there will be no second term) he would have to have the US military somehow personally loyal to him.  And while the military, on average, is more conservative than the US population that, in and of itself, is not a gurantee of personal loyalty to Trump.

why is anyone nominated by Trump tainted?

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

He was Sec. of State for Carter.  That was an incredibly stupid move.

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm agreeing that he would know and if that was what they were trying to provoke, it was stupid to provoke it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

why is anyone nominated by Trump tainted?

 

FE,

Because, Trump places such a high value on personal loyalty that I wouldn't put him above picking judges for the high court over whom he has some personal dirt to make sure that once they are on the bench of the SCOTUS they go his way on all his cases.

[S John]

It'll be interesting to see what happens if 'the tape' ever comes out, the one where Trump supposedly drops the 'n' bomb on the apprentice set.  My gut feeling is it won't change shit.  People who support Trump will do the same thing they've been doing, which is hem and haw about how it was in the past and they don't really like the guy but, hey, policy.   

But, to me that's really the Rubicon of whether or not continued support of the guy can be fairly called racist across the board.  You get him on a recent (apprentice era) 'n' bomb, not something that happened in like 1981 or something, and that's where I think his supporters will need to evaluate whether or not any policy is worth blowing up race relations and setting us back another 40 years.

[Frog Eater]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FE,

Because, Trump places such a high value on personal loyalty that I wouldn't put him above picking judges for the high court over whom he has some personal dirt to make sure that once they are on the bench of the SCOTUS they go his way on all his cases.

His list of Judges came out when he was running for office, are you insinuating that he has dirt on all 24 of them?

The list was put together for him, by the Heritage Foundation and others, that have been monitoring these judges since they were in Law School

Kavanaugh isnt tainted, and I hope he does a good job

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

His list of Judges came out when he was running for office, are you insinuating that he has dirt on all 24 of them?

The list was put together for him, by the Heritage Foundation and others, that have been monitoring these judges since they were in Law School

Kavanaugh isnt tainted, and I hope he does a good job

No, I'm not insinuating he has dirt on 24 of them.  I'm wondering if he has dirt on Kavanagh?  The nomination could be completely above board but fundamentally, because it is coming from Trump, I will always wonder and will not know if Kavanagh has an independent streak until we see him on the Court and then, it's too late.

 

[Week]

15 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

You cant say that everyone who voted Republican is a racist. Many Republican voters voted for Trump because of the Supreme Court, or because of their pro-life leanings, or their opposition to Hillary Clinton herself or any of a myriad of other reasons. 

Whatever facile reasons Trump voters have for their mistake pale next to the undeniability of his - and his administrations - racism and bigotry. You don't get one without the other.

[Frog Eater]

1 minute ago, Week said:

Whatever facile reasons Trump voters have pale next to the undeniability of his - and his administrations - racism and bigotry. You don't get one without the other.

But this is just wrong on every level. That Trump didnt disavow himself from real racists fast enough for you or in as harsh of terms as you would like wont change my or most other Republican's voter's priorities when it comes to voting. 

[Morpheus]

One more time. If you support a racist with racist policies, you are a racist, you are actively participating in racism. Accepting the racism because you won’t be affected by it, doesn’t speak well of you as a person.  Beyond that, 8 out of 10 Republicans approve of Trump’s approach to race and issues pertaining to race, he is objectively racist. Saying a lot of people are racist in no way dilutes the term, that  is asinine. Racism takes many forms, on one extreme there are the avowed white supremacists, but the greater portion of people who support Trump don’t identify as racist, they just spout racist garbage, believe every negative stereotype, dehumanize immigrants to the point where they accpept the atrocities perpetrated by the Trump administration, and then these people  get angry when they are called racist. 

You do not get to redefine racism to make yourself comfortable in your choices.

[Mexal]

26 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

His list of Judges came out when he was running for office, are you insinuating that he has dirt on all 24 of them?

The list was put together for him, by the Heritage Foundation and others, that have been monitoring these judges since they were in Law School

Kavanaugh isnt tainted, and I hope he does a good job

Yea and that's a massive issue. A President choosing his nominees from a pre-agreed a list provided by an outside, biased organization who has shepherded these justices through the process since an early age to push their law interpretations is a bad look.

[IheartIheartTesla]

27 minutes ago, S John said:

It'll be interesting to see what happens if 'the tape' ever comes out, the one where Trump supposedly drops the 'n' bomb on the apprentice set.  My gut feeling is it won't change shit.  People who support Trump will do the same thing they've been doing, which is hem and haw about how it was in the past and they don't really like the guy but, hey, policy.  

The conservative playbook (which they probably already have ready) will be:

1) President Obama used the word, (yes, maybe once, and in context, but by the time you get to that nuance half your audience has tuned out)

2) Black people and rappers use it all the time (also somewhat true, but the use of slurs 'in-group' and 'out-of-group' requires some nuance, and again, by that time even more of the audience is lost

3) Tax cuts, booming economy, Gorscuch etc....more of a play of pragmatism towards the base who may be feeling a bit queasy to bring them back into the fold

I think I am now jaded enough that I feel nothing will make a difference to his numbers.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm agreeing that he would know and if that was what they were trying to provoke, it was stupid to provoke it.

Like you said, "that's the way the game was played back then."

...which is probably not too different from how the game is played today.

I just find it remarkable that so many people know about, and rightly condemn, the former soviet Union for the Afgan war, but not even the media ever seems so ask the simple forensic question, "Why the hell did they go in there in the first place?"  Sadly, it partly has to do with us.

Another element of the "Charlie Wilsons War fiction" is the "mis-handling" of the rebel support by under supplying them.  To some degree, this was actually part of the plan: give them enough to keep them fighting but not so much that they bring down the regime.  The game was to bleed the soviets, not put Islamists in power.

What followed was a factional civil war that destroyed civil society in Afghanistan so badly, broad sectors of society actually welcomed the Taliban because at least they would bring order to the place.  Sometimes the devil you know... 

[Frog Eater]

7 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

One more time. If you support a racist with racist policies, you are a racist, you are actively participating in racism. Accepting the racism because you won’t be affected by it, doesn’t speak well of you as a person.  Beyond that, 8 out of 10 Republicans approve of Trump’s approach to race and issues pertaining to race, he is objectively racist. Saying a lot of people are racist in no way dilutes the term, that  is asinine. Racism takes many forms, on one extreme there are the avowed white supremacists, but the greater portion of people who support Trump don’t identify as racist, they just spout racist garbage, believe every negative stereotype, dehumanize immigrants to the point where they accpept the atrocities perpetrated by the Trump administration, and then these people  get angry when they are called racist. 

You do not get to redefine racism to make yourself comfortable in your choices.

If you supported Clinton with her warmongering policies, whose decisions as secretary of state caused the massive problems going on right now in Lybia and Syria, you are a warmonger. Accepting the warmongering because you wont be affected by it, doesnt speak well of you as a person. 

You do not get to redefine warmongering to make yourself comfortable in your choices. 

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The conservative playbook (which they probably already have ready) will be:

1) President Obama used the word, (yes, maybe once, and in context, but by the time you get to that nuance half your audience has tuned out)

2) Black people and rappers use it all the time (also somewhat true, but the use of slurs 'in-group' and 'out-of-group' requires some nuance, and again, by that time even more of the audience is lost

3) Tax cuts, booming economy, Gorscuch etc....more of a play of pragmatism towards the base who may be feeling a bit queasy to bring them back into the fold

I think I am now jaded enough that I feel nothing will make a difference to his numbers.

You forgot "the tape is fake, this is all a conspiracy.  Who are you going to trust, Trump or the lying media?"  Deepfakes have gotten dramatically better even since October 2016.  At the moment experts can probably tell if it were fake or not, but since when has this White House cared about experts?