afan -- I didn't vote for Trump. I didn't contribute money. I don't plan to. I'm not telling GOP leadership anything.
Like you -- we're just kibitzing about the passing freak parade.
At least you live in a swing state where your 1 vote counts for something.
Sure I criticized Obama & defended W Bush.
Same with HW Bush & Clinton.
I agreed with the Bushes more often than I agreed with Obama & Clinton.
Personally, I liked, trusted & admired then all. Not so with Trump.
Meanwhile -- the latest Deep State #1 best seller, How to take out a President*, by Mueller's former CIA briefer. ...might as well cash in.
* ...draws on his experience in the CIA under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton to look at the ethical and political repercussions of resisting, disobeying, or ejecting a president.
old salt wrote:afan -- I didn't vote for Trump. I didn't contribute money. I don't plan to. I'm not telling GOP leadership anything.
Apologies. You're right, of course, and I should have made the qualification------that many registered Republican feel the exact same way you do, and when pollsters call, they give a favorable view of Trump. That is encouraging future Republican leaders to do the same thing. Trump's numbers for a Republican are insanely high.
a fan wrote:This is the cry of the Trump fan (not saying you are one, but this is their battle cry). This is entirely untrue. He delivered on two promises: spending on the military, and massive tax cuts. And what's so funny (and maddening) is that Obama would have been OVERJOYED to deliver these exact bills waaaaaaay back in 2010 to Republican voters. All they had to do was ask.
They didn't. Instead they asked Obama and the R's to cut spending. So they did. First time Federal spending went down from one year to the next since 1953. And Republican voters got reaaaaaally mad that the economy wasn't going like they wanted. And got reaaaaaly mad that the military was "hollowed out". Yeah? So why did you tell Obama to do that?
As for the rest, he didn't replace Obamacare, and as you know, there's no Immigration Bill and no wall. There's also no infrastructure bill. Our trade deficit with China is WORSE since he messed with that. I could go on....but those are the highlights that he directly campaigned on, if you'll recalll.
He's the same "phony establishment elite' that Trump was supposedly rebelling against. Is the 1% richer under Trump? Of course. Bigly. So what are you talking about with this stuff?
every bit of this is true, but you skipped the reason a lot of establishment republicans held their noses and pulled the lever for Trump once he got the nomination - and that is the Supreme Court. That was a huge factor for most of those who cringed as they pulled the lever for Trump. It is why he has the support of the Christian right.
Which leads me to wonder about the evolving GOP courtship (vs historic lack thereof) of the maturing latino communities over the next few election cycles. The GOP has some pretty some big levers to gain traction within the latino communities on several key issues: small business, pro-life, traditional family. On basic values, the latino's line up with the GOP far more than the Dems, but the biggotry and prejudice of the GOP has turned them away. Does the GOP ever figure this out?
STILL somewhere back in the day....
...and waiting/hoping for a tinfoil hat emoji......
Randy,
I appreciate your explanation and will factor that into my reactions to some of your comments.
But I also think that a fan is correct on the points he made in response.
And I think you greatly undermine your credibility with what otherwise appear to be knee jerk responses in favor of Trump and Trump loyalists, and your sharp dismissal of his critics.
BTW, I don't think the "mainstream media", (i.e. "FAKE NEWS" and "Enemy of the People") or "the Deep State" are out to "destroy his Presidency". I do think that they are insisting upon truth telling rather than lies and are insisting upon the rule of law not corruption.
We would want them to do so regardless of who is in the White House.
And I think it immensely damaging to the body politic to have this incessant undermining of key institutions and the rule of law from the White House.
Whether that's attacking judges because they are Hispanic by ancestry or the FBI because they did not prosecute your political "enemy" or rejecting the work and judgment of the IC as actually valid and trustworthy simply because they identify the criminal actions of those with whom you wish to get along (Russia/Putin and MBS) or attacking the integrity of decades long public servants of impeccable integrity as somehow actually lacking integrity, sending dog whistles to the least savory elements of ones ideological persuasion, or a myriad of other examples, it does enormous damage to trust in these institutions and the integrity of our system, and amplifies divisiveness in our society.
As I've made clear, IMO Trump himself may not be the authoritarian who takes the US over the edge, but the damage he's doing may well set up such in the future, whether from left or right.
So, confronting those authoritarian tendencies, and defending the rule of law, are worthy causes. Attacking those who are standing up to it, not so worthy.
I do agree with you that tactics in opposition are a slippery slope in themselves.
Don't worry, most of my antagonists at the dinner table have been coming around to at least where you express yourself to be: disgust at the man and grudging awareness of some of the damage he's doing. Conversations are becoming much less likely to devolve.
That said, tomorrow I'll be with a couple of my sister's husband's family members who might as well put a Confederate flag in their trucks as they wear their racism on their sleeves like a badge of honor. Fortunately, my sister's husband is quite unlike his brothers, who are a bit of an embarrassment to the entire family due to their frequent issues with the police, multiple divorces and womanizing, sloppy alcoholism, etc, etc. They do shuck a mean oyster and their wives have for the most raised a passel of mostly squared away kids. So, we all hold our breaths a bit and just try to get through it, enjoying the feast.
a fan wrote:This is the cry of the Trump fan (not saying you are one, but this is their battle cry). This is entirely untrue. He delivered on two promises: spending on the military, and massive tax cuts. And what's so funny (and maddening) is that Obama would have been OVERJOYED to deliver these exact bills waaaaaaay back in 2010 to Republican voters. All they had to do was ask.
They didn't. Instead they asked Obama and the R's to cut spending. So they did. First time Federal spending went down from one year to the next since 1953. And Republican voters got reaaaaaally mad that the economy wasn't going like they wanted. And got reaaaaaly mad that the military was "hollowed out". Yeah? So why did you tell Obama to do that?
As for the rest, he didn't replace Obamacare, and as you know, there's no Immigration Bill and no wall. There's also no infrastructure bill. Our trade deficit with China is WORSE since he messed with that. I could go on....but those are the highlights that he directly campaigned on, if you'll recalll.
He's the same "phony establishment elite' that Trump was supposedly rebelling against. Is the 1% richer under Trump? Of course. Bigly. So what are you talking about with this stuff?
every bit of this is true, but you skipped the reason a lot of establishment republicans held their noses and pulled the lever for Trump once he got the nomination - and that is the Supreme Court. That was a huge factor for most of those who cringed as they pulled the lever for Trump. It is why he has the support of the Christian right.
Which leads me to wonder about the evolving GOP courtship (vs historic lack thereof) of the maturing latino communities over the next few election cycles. The GOP has some pretty some big levers to gain traction within the latino communities on several key issues: small business, pro-life, traditional family. On basic values, the latino's line up with the GOP far more than the Dems, but the biggotry and prejudice of the GOP has turned them away. Does the GOP ever figure this out?
They did figure this out.
But then Trump emerged and, with his bigotry and demonization, drew out a huge number of voters from the shadows who pulled the lever with traditional GOP voters. And that wing has now bullied its way to dominance at nearly every level of the GOP, with only a handful of exceptions remaining.
Love that, MDlax, make sure you've got plenty of Old Milwaukee on hand and a spittoon in every corner.
The salty one has not changed his tune one note regarding Trump.
It's a must to remember when reading his posts, which is not to
say, by any stretch of the imagination, that I'm buying that the
Prez's helo couldn't have made the trip to the cemetery in
France.
HooDat wrote:you skipped the reason a lot of establishment republicans held their noses and pulled the lever for Trump once he got the nomination - and that is the Supreme Court. That was a huge factor for most of those who cringed as they pulled the lever for Trump. It is why he has the support of the Christian right.
I get that the Christian right wants SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade so that they can then outlaw abortion, at least in the states they control.
But what I don't get is what the Chamber-of-Commerce, small-business type of Republicans want SCOTUS to do. Can you give me an actual recent or pending case that is before SCOTUS, and how it will affect these Rs to make them care so much about it?
And please, no generalities like "uphold the Constitution" or "defend freedom".
I really want to understand, and right now I don't.
The gun-rights segment (single issue voters and other) of the right is very, very large, and they are extremely happy about stacking the court. I don't know about any pending cases offhand, but this is something they're passionate about and vote in good numbers for.
foreverlax wrote:Fox has a handful, maybe, of anchors who are willing to stick to their principles and call Trump out. Cavuto, Bair, Wallace, Smith and Judge Nap.
The rest are either playing the game to keep their job or are in the bag blindly for Trump.....Dobbs, Varney, and Maria have lost all their credibility, they are ways closer to "personalities" rather then anchors.
Dobbs, Varney, and Trish Regan are hacks. Bartiromo, Liz Claman, and Dagen McDowell are OK. I really like Charles Payne (Cavuto too) and biz beat reporter Charlie Gasparino. The Judge, when he's not being cringingly goofy, is a straight shooter.
HooDat wrote: you skipped the reason a lot of establishment republicans held their noses and pulled the lever for Trump once he got the nomination - and that is the Supreme Court. That was a huge factor for most of those who cringed as they pulled the lever for Trump. It is why he has the support of the Christian right.
Yes, but these people are, imho, fools.
Unless you're in the top 5%, these Justices are not going to rule in your favor. They are going to pick the 1%----corporations, people that can afford lobbying and lawyers----every time in every case that actually affects the 95%. Left/right doesn't come in to play for pretty much every case except maybe gay marriage...and that's settled already.
I'm going to enjoy watching this realization and irony over the next 20 years.
More to the point: VDH and you and old salt have come to realize that globalism and trickle down was wrong, and the libs and America first was right.
So who do you all think these new Justices favor, and represent? The globalists? Or the America First-ers?
HooDat wrote: you skipped the reason a lot of establishment republicans held their noses and pulled the lever for Trump once he got the nomination - and that is the Supreme Court. That was a huge factor for most of those who cringed as they pulled the lever for Trump. It is why he has the support of the Christian right.
Yes, but these people are, imho, fools.
Unless you're in the top 5%, these Justices are not going to rule in your favor. They are going to pick the 1%----corporations, people that can afford lobbying and lawyers----every time in every case that actually affects the 95%. Left/right doesn't come in to play for pretty much every case except maybe gay marriage...and that's settled already.
I'm going to enjoy watching this realization and irony over the next 20 years.
More to the point: VDH and you and old salt have come to realize that globalism and trickle down was wrong, and the libs and America first was right.
So who do you all think these new Justices favor, and represent? The globalists? Or the America First-ers?
Whoops.
Wait...WHAT? Hey, don't let cradle see this...he's rambling on over in another thread about how it makes no difference AT ALL what "leaning" the SCOTUS may have, in the end, they just "call balls 'n strikes"...
sshhhhhhhh....
..
Last edited by dislaxxic on Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
HooDat wrote: you skipped the reason a lot of establishment republicans held their noses and pulled the lever for Trump once he got the nomination - and that is the Supreme Court. That was a huge factor for most of those who cringed as they pulled the lever for Trump. It is why he has the support of the Christian right.
Yes, but these people are, imho, fools.
Unless you're in the top 5%, these Justices are not going to rule in your favor. They are going to pick the 1%----corporations, people that can afford lobbying and lawyers----every time in every case that actually affects the 95%. Left/right doesn't come in to play for pretty much every case except maybe gay marriage...and that's settled already.
I'm going to enjoy watching this realization and irony over the next 20 years.
More to the point: VDH and you and old salt have come to realize that globalism and trickle down was wrong, and the libs and America first was right.
So who do you all think these new Justices favor, and represent? The globalists? Or the America First-ers?
Whoops.
Wait...WHAT? Hey, don't let cradle see this...he's rambling on over in another thread about how it makes no difference AT ALL what "leaning" the SCOTUS may have, in the ned, they just "call balls 'n strikes"...
sshhhhhhhh....
..
What are you telling us here Dis? The SCOTUS should decide cases by what their political beliefs tell them. Thanks for clearing that up. I was always under the misconception they decided cases by what the constitution said. You know that misguided notion of balls and strikes. The new normal for SCOTUS decisions is well I feel that this is very wrong. It is no wonder Michael Savage has declared liberalism a "mental disorder"
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
c&s wrote: What are you telling us here Dis? The SCOTUS should decide cases by what their political beliefs tell them. Thanks for clearing that up. I was always under the misconception they decided cases by what the constitution said. You know that misguided notion of balls and strikes. The new normal for SCOTUS decisions is well I feel that this is very wrong. It is no wonder Michael Savage has declared liberalism a "mental disorder"
Yesterday
That depends on what the congress does in the next 2 years. IMO it is about judges. You get as many of your men and women on the courts all over the nation that you can. That is where it really matters. It is the courts that decide where the country is headed. A judge in San Francisco just made a decision that effects the entire country with one temporary injunction. I don't think the congress or the senate could equal that type of power with just the stroke of a pen.
Square the two for us, cradle. "You get as many of your men and women on the courts all over the nation that you can" because "it is the courts that decide where the country is headed." How can that be if they all just call balls and strikes like they're supposed to??
Sure sounds like you're cheering for the packing of the courts with conservative judges...especially in light of your obvious feelings about "that injunction issued in San Francisco"...you know, the one you and Don feel makes the country much more unsafe...
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
c&s wrote: What are you telling us here Dis? The SCOTUS should decide cases by what their political beliefs tell them. Thanks for clearing that up. I was always under the misconception they decided cases by what the constitution said. You know that misguided notion of balls and strikes. The new normal for SCOTUS decisions is well I feel that this is very wrong. It is no wonder Michael Savage has declared liberalism a "mental disorder"
Yesterday
That depends on what the congress does in the next 2 years. IMO it is about judges. You get as many of your men and women on the courts all over the nation that you can. That is where it really matters. It is the courts that decide where the country is headed. A judge in San Francisco just made a decision that effects the entire country with one temporary injunction. I don't think the congress or the senate could equal that type of power with just the stroke of a pen.
Square the two for us, cradle. "You get as many of your men and women on the courts all over the nation that you can" because "it is the courts that decide where the country is headed." How can that be if they all just call balls and strikes like they're supposed to??
Sure sounds like you're cheering for the packing of the courts with conservative judges...especially in light of your obvious feelings about "that injunction issued in San Francisco"...you know, the one you and Don feel makes the country much more unsafe...
..
Dis... sadly my yellow friend if I have to explain this to you it is not worth my time doing so. FYI there is no sarcasm involved here. Just my own personal observation of someone so far out in left field that he can't even see a fly ball headed his way. My suggestion to you is a good nights sleep and maybe, just maybe your sense of reality will return in the morning... A nice hot cup of cocoa will help you out here.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
c&s wrote: What are you telling us here Dis? The SCOTUS should decide cases by what their political beliefs tell them. Thanks for clearing that up. I was always under the misconception they decided cases by what the constitution said. You know that misguided notion of balls and strikes. The new normal for SCOTUS decisions is well I feel that this is very wrong. It is no wonder Michael Savage has declared liberalism a "mental disorder"
Yesterday
That depends on what the congress does in the next 2 years. IMO it is about judges. You get as many of your men and women on the courts all over the nation that you can. That is where it really matters. It is the courts that decide where the country is headed. A judge in San Francisco just made a decision that effects the entire country with one temporary injunction. I don't think the congress or the senate could equal that type of power with just the stroke of a pen.
Square the two for us, cradle. "You get as many of your men and women on the courts all over the nation that you can" because "it is the courts that decide where the country is headed." How can that be if they all just call balls and strikes like they're supposed to??
Sure sounds like you're cheering for the packing of the courts with conservative judges...especially in light of your obvious feelings about "that injunction issued in San Francisco"...you know, the one you and Don feel makes the country much more unsafe...
..
Dis... sadly my yellow friend if I have to explain this to you it is not worth my time doing so. FYI there is no sarcasm involved here. Just my own personal observation of someone so far out in left field that he can't even see a fly ball headed his way. My suggestion to you is a good nights sleep and maybe, just maybe your sense of reality will return in the morning... A nice hot cup of cocoa will help you out here.
dis, unfortunately the true believers see no conflict. Yes, they want as many 'conservative' judges as possible, those who will actively reverse precedent decisions as "not well decided", consistently reinterpreting the Constitution to reflect their own 'conservative' social perspective. They will simultaneously claim that the only 'activist' judges are those who, like the judge in this most recent immigration case, actually uphold the law as plainly written, and as clearly intended, rather than bow to the will of the President.
Of course, the reality is that most of the Justices (and judges) do attempt to 'call balls and strikes' best they can, and as narrowly as they can. They actually respect the Constitution and the balance of powers.
But that's not what the right wing folks have been told to believe for years and years. They see it all as political.
Note, there's not a darn thing 'conservative' about the right wing's intent.
And the liberals will want to jam the court with as many FLP types as they can. If given the opportunity given by the motto elections have consequences. Please don't lecture me about the republicans trying to do the same thing that democrats will do when given the opportunity. It is almost becoming the patriotic duty of the SCOTUS justices to either retire or die at a more appropriate political point in time. If you don't like Republicans winning elections and nominating judges then if you are a Democrat find a message for the American people to vote for you. Enough with the whining already. Democrats pull your head out of your ass and give the American people a better alternative. Then you all can nominate whatever judges you want. It is really a very simple game... win elections choose the judges. The alternative right now is pretty pathetic... lose elections and complain about the judges the other side nominates... baby1 baby1 baby1
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
old salt wrote:afan -- I didn't vote for Trump. I didn't contribute money. I don't plan to. I'm not telling GOP leadership anything.
Apologies. You're right, of course, and I should have made the qualification------that many registered Republican feel the exact same way you do, and when pollsters call, they give a favorable view of Trump. That is encouraging future Republican leaders to do the same thing. Trump's numbers for a Republican are insanely high.
Where do pollsters get information on party registration? The Russians? And, why is it so important to have favorability rankings? What is this , American Idol?
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
It is no wonder Michael Savage has declared liberalism a "mental disorder"