Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(02-10-2017, 02:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (02-10-2017, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Ninth Circuit recently agreed that Trump's executive order to stop certain aliens from entering the US should not be enforced. Trump responded by calling this a political decision, and announced that he would win easily on appeal. This makes me wonder if Trump is dealing with a well thought out legal position, or if he is shooting from the hip instinctively. To often, when confronted with any sort of opposition, his tendency is to insult and confront with little concern for maintaining contact with reality.
Wondering, I actually slogged through the Ninth Circuit's opinion. I'm not professional legal type, but it felt solid. If there is politics involved, and I suspect there is, it has been camouflaged well behind a wall of precedent. The Ninth walked through Trump's lawyer's claims point by point, and rebutted each point.
On the judicial side of things, conservative judges tend to strictly honor the intent of the authors of the law, while progressive judges might be concerned with the rights of the people. I'm thinking that at least in this case, Trump is over stretching his power while disregarding rights and due process. He's stepping on the toes of both sorts of judges. The unanimous decision by a panel appointed by presidents of both parties might suggest Trump will have a problem moving on.
This reflects an ongoing question on my part. Is Trump lying, or is he living in an alternate reality where he is right? Does he really believe he has some sort of reasonable legal argument?
Who elected the Ninth Circuit Court to be the president of the United States? Who elected them to be the law makers (legislative branch) of the United States? Whose rights are actually being disregarded? Do you like America? Do you like living in America? If our rights can be disregarded what makes you think that your rights can't be disregarded? I told you that you'd be wise to stop viewing issues from a blues perspective to begin viewing issues from more of an American's perspective? If you are incapable of doing so, the extreme partisan label that you use can be used and accurately applied to you by me. You keep falling back/slipping back to an emotionally guided blues perspective. Here we are as a nation, trying to get certain things in place national security wise before we (America) begin leading a war against ISIS (a result of a major blue blunder). Where do you think America is at with ISIS? Love's/respects/values them enough to keep them around for decades or want's them all dead one way or another? Ask yourself this, how did America vote? Did Democrats bringing up their Muslim concerns, young Muslim emotional sob stories about feeling scared about being judged by Americans and using a poor Muslim still suffering from the emotional loss of a son as political pawn against Trumps policies, change the way America voted?
We have a separation of powers, and the Constitution is superior to the public feelings of the moment or the grand schemes or low crimes of the President and elected officials. If we want the legal system to reflect the will of the people who may be hopped up on hatred , then we might as well allow lynch mobs to perform their perverse idea of 'justice'.
The First Amendment is abundantly clear about religious freedom: no person can become a legal pariah for his religious beliefs. We recognize religious freedom of people other than those who share our traditions, theology, and creed or we invalidate our claim to our own righteousness. If you dislike Islam -- tough! Just stay clear of a mosque.
Religious bigotry has a tendency to seek new victims. Today it is Muslims -- who is next? Jews? Mormons? Buddhists? Wicca? Catholics? Let's be mature adults and stop it now. Muslims do not want refugee status in America so that they can be terrorists in America; they want to be in America so that they can practice Islam as their consciences dictate, and they want to escape terrorist regimes like ISIS and Syria under Assad.
So whose rights are being repressed? Mine -- should I find Islam a solution for my problems! (Judaism is more likely in my case, but that is a different story because I have a big German component in my culture... I simply hate Nazis for killing people similar to me in culture). But even at that I have a common interest with Islam for a family-friendly world with some resemblance to Dearborn, Michigan. I am sure that you have heard my story -- that southwestern Detroit along Michigan Avenue (US 12) is a cesspool of sexually-oriented businesses, prostitutes leasing their bodies so that they can get fixes from pushers, drunks and addicts wandering about aimlessly, pimps and pushers dealing in human suffering, decadent people looking for sex... and Dearborn, with a large Muslim population, has none of that.
But neither do many Christians, Jews, atheists, or agnostics. Dearborn is a pleasant place to live because it 'lacks' the strip clubs and wild bars... let alone the scum that poisons its brains with drugs, spreads its legs for a price, and either profits from it or fosters it. Sure, I have gotten a drink in Dearborn... in a nice, quiet Irish pub, the sort that doesn't generate too many calls for the police. But just ask yourself -- if a strip club, some rough bars, and a porno palace get razed so that a mosque goes up in their place -- don't you recognize the improvement?
Islam has its virtues, and our watered-down Christian culture has some scorpions in its soul. One of those scorpions is our President. Sure, secularism is fine -- so long as people expressing it have some moral compass. Some people want a moral compass and that Islam provides more of one than does Christianity. If such people find what they want in Islam, then good for them!
As for ISIS -- Muslim critics of ISIS have attacked it for egregious violations of Islamic law and teaching. ISIS is to Islam what Nazism is to Christianity, a complete rejection of any humane tendencies within the culture. Many of the Muslims seeking refuge in America are coming to enjoy the freedoms that we have, including the right to practice Islam as their consciences dictate and not as thugs like Bashir Assad and ISIS thugs demand.
We can all share partisan culpability for ISIS. Had Dubya not lied to start his war for glory in Iraq, then maybe we might have seen Satan Hussein or his successor sons die with ropes around their necks as the result of revolution in the Arab Spring. Many members of ISIS are ex-Baathists associated with the amoral rule of Saddam Hussein who went from one form of fascism to another. Maybe President Obama was unwilling to make the sort of deal necessary to keep US troops in Iraq (as if that were a success). Maybe if American soldiers hadn't abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib, there might not be such a mess.
And yes, I consider someone so amoral as Donald Trump the wrong sort of leader to deal with the foreign situation From a moral standpoint it is far better that Muslims who hate Assad and ISIS be in America than face torture and murder. How can we Americans who have a moral compass align ourselves with a bigotry at the core of Trump foreign policy?
Somehow I see an equivalence between a Jew who perished under Hitler and a Muslim who perishes under Assad or ISIS.
...You can be glad that I am about half-English and half-German in ancestry instead of being a Cuban-American. If I were a Cuban-American I would rip you even more harshly. Bad as Fidel Castro was, Assad and ISIS are far, far worse.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(02-10-2017, 03:50 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: (02-10-2017, 02:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (02-10-2017, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Ninth Circuit recently agreed that Trump's executive order to stop certain aliens from entering the US should not be enforced. Trump responded by calling this a political decision, and announced that he would win easily on appeal. This makes me wonder if Trump is dealing with a well thought out legal position, or if he is shooting from the hip instinctively. To often, when confronted with any sort of opposition, his tendency is to insult and confront with little concern for maintaining contact with reality.
Wondering, I actually slogged through the Ninth Circuit's opinion. I'm not professional legal type, but it felt solid. If there is politics involved, and I suspect there is, it has been camouflaged well behind a wall of precedent. The Ninth walked through Trump's lawyer's claims point by point, and rebutted each point.
On the judicial side of things, conservative judges tend to strictly honor the intent of the authors of the law, while progressive judges might be concerned with the rights of the people. I'm thinking that at least in this case, Trump is over stretching his power while disregarding rights and due process. He's stepping on the toes of both sorts of judges. The unanimous decision by a panel appointed by presidents of both parties might suggest Trump will have a problem moving on.
This reflects an ongoing question on my part. Is Trump lying, or is he living in an alternate reality where he is right? Does he really believe he has some sort of reasonable legal argument?
Who elected the Ninth Circuit Court to be the president of the United States? Who elected them to be the law makers (legislative branch) of the United States? Whose rights are actually being disregarded? Do you like America? Do you like living in America? If our rights can be disregarded what makes you think that your rights can't be disregarded? I told you that you'd be wise to stop viewing issues from a blues perspective to begin viewing issues from more of an American's perspective? If you are incapable of doing so, the extreme partisan label that you use can be used and accurately applied to you by me. You keep falling back/slipping back to an emotionally guided blues perspective. Here we are as a nation, trying to get certain things in place national security wise before we (America) begin leading a war against ISIS (a result of a major blue blunder). Where do you think America is at with ISIS? Love's/respects/values them enough to keep them around for decades or want's them all dead one way or another? Ask yourself this, how did America vote? Did Democrats bringing up their Muslim concerns, young Muslim emotional sob stories about feeling scared about being judged by Americans and using a poor Muslim still suffering from the emotional loss of a son as political pawn against Trumps policies, change the way America voted?
I love living in America plus I am a type of Amercan Nationalist (but very different from Trumpists). I have had many, many issues with the 9th, over the years. There were many times that I agreed with Michael Savage' moniker "the Stench from the Bench" - regarding this court.
Nonetheless, they are correct and right on this one. Dare I say, they are actually being a bit Strict Constructionist. Their reading of this is quite conservative. In this case, Trump is the radical the The Judiciary are being good conservatives.
You're an American nationalist of some type who hasn't quite figured out where he belongs ( naturally fits in) on the central issues yet. How different are you on the central issues than me? Keep in mind, I've spent more time taking on views of hardcore leftists and whittling down the number of hardcore leftists and turning Americans away from them than I've spent doing what you were doing (getting your rocks off egotistically, talking big and acting tough around hardcore right wingers and associating with a radical groups that you probably thought wouldn't ever amount to much of anything before Trump. My advice, wise up and don't make the same stupid mistake twice. BTW, they're being loyal blue ideologues who are doing exactly what's expected of them by the ideologues who control them. I can't speak for you, but I could certainly live without that group of so-called American judges. A group of blue minded humans who view themselves as being the superiors to all the Constitutional branches the United States government. Are there any classical liberal judges left on the blue side of the Supreme Court who view themselves as being more powerful than anyone one of them who didn't view their oath as necessary lip service required to receive a plush government job with tons of perks? We'll see.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
I found it encouraging that the ruling was unanimous, including one Republican appointee. We have the Courts who might be able to defend the people from the most egregious un-American activities by the Trump team.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(02-10-2017, 04:49 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: (02-10-2017, 02:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (02-10-2017, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Ninth Circuit recently agreed that Trump's executive order to stop certain aliens from entering the US should not be enforced. Trump responded by calling this a political decision, and announced that he would win easily on appeal. This makes me wonder if Trump is dealing with a well thought out legal position, or if he is shooting from the hip instinctively. To often, when confronted with any sort of opposition, his tendency is to insult and confront with little concern for maintaining contact with reality.
Wondering, I actually slogged through the Ninth Circuit's opinion. I'm not professional legal type, but it felt solid. If there is politics involved, and I suspect there is, it has been camouflaged well behind a wall of precedent. The Ninth walked through Trump's lawyer's claims point by point, and rebutted each point.
On the judicial side of things, conservative judges tend to strictly honor the intent of the authors of the law, while progressive judges might be concerned with the rights of the people. I'm thinking that at least in this case, Trump is over stretching his power while disregarding rights and due process. He's stepping on the toes of both sorts of judges. The unanimous decision by a panel appointed by presidents of both parties might suggest Trump will have a problem moving on.
This reflects an ongoing question on my part. Is Trump lying, or is he living in an alternate reality where he is right? Does he really believe he has some sort of reasonable legal argument?
Who elected the Ninth Circuit Court to be the president of the United States? Who elected them to be the law makers (legislative branch) of the United States? Whose rights are actually being disregarded? Do you like America? Do you like living in America? If our rights can be disregarded what makes you think that your rights can't be disregarded? I told you that you'd be wise to stop viewing issues from a blues perspective to begin viewing issues from more of an American's perspective? If you are incapable of doing so, the extreme partisan label that you use can be used and accurately applied to you by me. You keep falling back/slipping back to an emotionally guided blues perspective. Here we are as a nation, trying to get certain things in place national security wise before we (America) begin leading a war against ISIS (a result of a major blue blunder). Where do you think America is at with ISIS? Love's/respects/values them enough to keep them around for decades or want's them all dead one way or another? Ask yourself this, how did America vote? Did Democrats bringing up their Muslim concerns, young Muslim emotional sob stories about feeling scared about being judged by Americans and using a poor Muslim still suffering from the emotional loss of a son as political pawn against Trumps policies, change the way America voted?
We have a separation of powers, and the Constitution is superior to the public feelings of the moment or the grand schemes or low crimes of the President and elected officials. If we want the legal system to reflect the will of the people who may be hopped up on hatred , then we might as well allow lynch mobs to perform their perverse idea of 'justice'.
The First Amendment is abundantly clear about religious freedom: no person can become a legal pariah for his religious beliefs. We recognize religious freedom of people other than those who share our traditions, theology, and creed or we invalidate our claim to our own righteousness. If you dislike Islam -- tough! Just stay clear of a mosque.
Religious bigotry has a tendency to seek new victims. Today it is Muslims -- who is next? Jews? Mormons? Buddhists? Wicca? Catholics? Let's be mature adults and stop it now. Muslims do not want refugee status in America so that they can be terrorists in America; they want to be in America so that they can practice Islam as their consciences dictate, and they want to escape terrorist regimes like ISIS and Syria under Assad.
So whose rights are being repressed? Mine -- should I find Islam a solution for my problems! (Judaism is more likely in my case, but that is a different story because I have a big German component in my culture... I simply hate Nazis for killing people similar to me in culture). But even at that I have a common interest with Islam for a family-friendly world with some resemblance to Dearborn, Michigan. I am sure that you have heard my story -- that southwestern Detroit along Michigan Avenue (US 12) is a cesspool of sexually-oriented businesses, prostitutes leasing their bodies so that they can get fixes from pushers, drunks and addicts wandering about aimlessly, pimps and pushers dealing in human suffering, decadent people looking for sex... and Dearborn, with a large Muslim population, has none of that.
But neither do many Christians, Jews, atheists, or agnostics. Dearborn is a pleasant place to live because it 'lacks' the strip clubs and wild bars... let alone the scum that poisons its brains with drugs, spreads its legs for a price, and either profits from it or fosters it. Sure, I have gotten a drink in Dearborn... in a nice, quiet Irish pub, the sort that doesn't generate too many calls for the police. But just ask yourself -- if a strip club, some rough bars, and a porno palace get razed so that a mosque goes up in their place -- don't you recognize the improvement?
Islam has its virtues, and our watered-down Christian culture has some scorpions in its soul. One of those scorpions is our President. Sure, secularism is fine -- so long as people expressing it have some moral compass. Some people want a moral compass and that Islam provides more of one than does Christianity. If such people find what they want in Islam, then good for them!
As for ISIS -- Muslim critics of ISIS have attacked it for egregious violations of Islamic law and teaching. ISIS is to Islam what Nazism is to Christianity, a complete rejection of any humane tendencies within the culture. Many of the Muslims seeking refuge in America are coming to enjoy the freedoms that we have, including the right to practice Islam as their consciences dictate and not as thugs like Bashir Assad and ISIS thugs demand.
We can all share partisan culpability for ISIS. Had Dubya not lied to start his war for glory in Iraq, then maybe we might have seen Satan Hussein or his successor sons die with ropes around their necks as the result of revolution in the Arab Spring. Many members of ISIS are ex-Baathists associated with the amoral rule of Saddam Hussein who went from one form of fascism to another. Maybe President Obama was unwilling to make the sort of deal necessary to keep US troops in Iraq (as if that were a success). Maybe if American soldiers hadn't abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib, there might not be such a mess.
And yes, I consider someone so amoral as Donald Trump the wrong sort of leader to deal with the foreign situation From a moral standpoint it is far better that Muslims who hate Assad and ISIS be in America than face torture and murder. How can we Americans who have a moral compass align ourselves with a bigotry at the core of Trump foreign policy?
Somehow I see an equivalence between a Jew who perished under Hitler and a Muslim who perishes under Assad or ISIS.
...You can be glad that I am about half-English and half-German in ancestry instead of being a Cuban-American. If I were a Cuban-American I would rip you even more harshly. Bad as Fidel Castro was, Assad and ISIS are far, far worse.
Hitler blamed the Jews for what? Jews killing/attacking German's in public places? The Muslims appear to have an issue with the use of religious bigotry and use of violence that we've all experienced. I hope you aren't you dumb enough to deny it's existence in the presence of American who have either seen it and directly experienced it. If so, you'd look as stupid to most Americans as the Holocaust deniers look to them. Who should Americans properly blame for on going Muslim use of religious bigotry? I don't think America should blame the Jews, blame the Catholics, blame the Hindu's, blame the Protestants, blame religiously neutral Americans like myself or Atheists like yourself. I think blame should remain on those who are religiously associated with it. IMO, if you truly cares about them, which you obviously don't, you wouldn't want them directly involved politically because you'd know that would just makes matters even worse for them here. I really beginning to question the values of blues here and the value of the party that most are associated with here.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(02-10-2017, 07:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I found it encouraging that the ruling was unanimous, including one Republican appointee. We have the Courts who might be able to defend the people from the most egregious un-American activities by the Trump team.
I assume that he had to maintain a good working relationship/standing among his liberal peers.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(02-10-2017, 07:19 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (02-10-2017, 07:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I found it encouraging that the ruling was unanimous, including one Republican appointee. We have the Courts who might be able to defend the people from the most egregious un-American activities by the Trump team.
I assume that he had to maintain a good working relationship/standing among his liberal peers.
I assume that he knows the law and ruled accordingly.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(02-10-2017, 11:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (02-10-2017, 07:19 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (02-10-2017, 07:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I found it encouraging that the ruling was unanimous, including one Republican appointee. We have the Courts who might be able to defend the people from the most egregious un-American activities by the Trump team.
I assume that he had to maintain a good working relationship/standing among his liberal peers.
I assume that he knows the law and ruled accordingly.
I agree. Conservative jurists tend to limit the power of the government and respect the original intent of the authors of the law. If Trump is aggressive in expanding executive power, he will not find himself on the same side as many conservative jurists.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(02-10-2017, 02:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (02-10-2017, 02:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (02-10-2017, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Ninth Circuit recently agreed that Trump's executive order to stop certain aliens from entering the US should not be enforced. Trump responded by calling this a political decision, and announced that he would win easily on appeal. This makes me wonder if Trump is dealing with a well thought out legal position, or if he is shooting from the hip instinctively. To often, when confronted with any sort of opposition, his tendency is to insult and confront with little concern for maintaining contact with reality.
Wondering, I actually slogged through the Ninth Circuit's opinion. I'm not professional legal type, but it felt solid. If there is politics involved, and I suspect there is, it has been camouflaged well behind a wall of precedent. The Ninth walked through Trump's lawyer's claims point by point, and rebutted each point.
On the judicial side of things, conservative judges tend to strictly honor the intent of the authors of the law, while progressive judges might be concerned with the rights of the people. I'm thinking that at least in this case, Trump is over stretching his power while disregarding rights and due process. He's stepping on the toes of both sorts of judges. The unanimous decision by a panel appointed by presidents of both parties might suggest Trump will have a problem moving on.
This reflects an ongoing question on my part. Is Trump lying, or is he living in an alternate reality where he is right? Does he really believe he has some sort of reasonable legal argument?
Who elected the Ninth Circuit Court to be the president of the United States? Who elected them to be the law makers (legislative branch) of the United States? Whose rights are actually being disregarded? Do you like America? Do you like living in America? If our rights can be disregarded what makes you think that your rights can't be disregarded? I told you that you'd be wise to begin viewing issues from a blues perspective to viewing issues from more of an American's perspective? If you are incapable of doing so, the extreme partisan can be accurately applied to you by me. You keep falling back/slipping back to a blues perspective? Here we are as a nation, trying to get certain things in place national security wise before we (America) begin leading a war against ISIS (a result of a major blue blunder). Where do you think America is at with ISIS? Love's/respects/values them enough to keep them around or want's them all dead one way or another? Ask yourself this, how did America vote? Did bringing up Muslim concerns, young Muslim sob stories and using a Muslim who was still suffering from the emotional loss of a son as political pawn against Trump change the way America voted?
The point has been well made, that if Trump and his supporters can render the judiciary impotent, then that also renders the legislature/congress impotent, because it can pass laws and the president can simply not enforce them. The constitution contains checks and balances, including Courts who can rule on the laws.
I wonder again what is your concern, Classic Xer? There is no threat from any of the people that Trump has banned. Refugees are all thoroughly vetted already. The 7 countries on his list have not been the source of any deaths and even very few incidents of terrorist threats. There was no need to stop travel "until we can tell what's going on." There's nothing going on. Illegal immigration from Mexico is down, and the border is enforced. This is simply stoking prejudice and fear to get support from his base of voters, which includes yourself.
And Drump disrespects the CIA, which are the folks who have stopped terrorist threats through good intelligence.
And you keep conflating your red perspective with an "American" perspective. But the blue side is correct about what American values are, and not your side. They are not xenophobia; they are welcoming to refugees from oppression and poverty. So, you think Emma Lazarus and the Statue of Liberty are un-American? You think the Constitution is un-American? And America did not vote for this. Only the 18th century slaveholders created this Trump situation.
And the war against the IS is solely due to the blunder of your side in invading Iraq when it posed no threat and had not attacked us. That created the IS. Obama pulling troops out in 2011 in accord with an agreement of the Iraqi government with President Bush was not a blunder, and did not create the IS. Al Qaeda in Iraq aka the IS was already there; the Maliki government gave it new life.
And now Trump is in charge of Obama's campaign to help the Iraqis get rid of the IS. I am concerned that this is being endangered by his Muslim ban against travel from Iraq. If the alliance between the new Iraqi government and the USA is broken because of Trump's behavior, then the only way the USA can fight the IS is to invade Iraq again with ground troops, seize the oil fields as he wants, and start another war with Iraq and thereby revive the IS. But, that's what you voted for, so I hope you like it.
Unfortunately, you can't blame Bush for Obama's mistakes with me. Honestly, I didn't believe that Obama would foolish enough to actually pull our troops out of Iraq. I screwed up and over estimated his level of intelligence. Do I need to remind you that half of your side was directly involved with Bush's blunder? As I recall, the great John Kerry voted in favor of the war before he voted against it. BTW, my position on the war at the time was similar to Trump's. However, my position during the war was always in favor of America winning the war because the outcome mattered to me as an American. BTW, I've always viewed the blues as the primary reason we lost. Lesson learned, blues aren't worth sacrificing for as far as people are concerned. I'm usually ahead of the curve so you want to think about dying soon because blues are going to have a hard time convincing American born Gen Xrs to do much of anything for the blues other than sink the final nail in their political coffin.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(02-11-2017, 04:15 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (02-10-2017, 02:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (02-10-2017, 02:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (02-10-2017, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Ninth Circuit recently agreed that Trump's executive order to stop certain aliens from entering the US should not be enforced. Trump responded by calling this a political decision, and announced that he would win easily on appeal. This makes me wonder if Trump is dealing with a well thought out legal position, or if he is shooting from the hip instinctively. To often, when confronted with any sort of opposition, his tendency is to insult and confront with little concern for maintaining contact with reality.
Wondering, I actually slogged through the Ninth Circuit's opinion. I'm not professional legal type, but it felt solid. If there is politics involved, and I suspect there is, it has been camouflaged well behind a wall of precedent. The Ninth walked through Trump's lawyer's claims point by point, and rebutted each point.
On the judicial side of things, conservative judges tend to strictly honor the intent of the authors of the law, while progressive judges might be concerned with the rights of the people. I'm thinking that at least in this case, Trump is over stretching his power while disregarding rights and due process. He's stepping on the toes of both sorts of judges. The unanimous decision by a panel appointed by presidents of both parties might suggest Trump will have a problem moving on.
This reflects an ongoing question on my part. Is Trump lying, or is he living in an alternate reality where he is right? Does he really believe he has some sort of reasonable legal argument?
Who elected the Ninth Circuit Court to be the president of the United States? Who elected them to be the law makers (legislative branch) of the United States? Whose rights are actually being disregarded? Do you like America? Do you like living in America? If our rights can be disregarded what makes you think that your rights can't be disregarded? I told you that you'd be wise to begin viewing issues from a blues perspective to viewing issues from more of an American's perspective? If you are incapable of doing so, the extreme partisan can be accurately applied to you by me. You keep falling back/slipping back to a blues perspective? Here we are as a nation, trying to get certain things in place national security wise before we (America) begin leading a war against ISIS (a result of a major blue blunder). Where do you think America is at with ISIS? Love's/respects/values them enough to keep them around or want's them all dead one way or another? Ask yourself this, how did America vote? Did bringing up Muslim concerns, young Muslim sob stories and using a Muslim who was still suffering from the emotional loss of a son as political pawn against Trump change the way America voted?
The point has been well made, that if Trump and his supporters can render the judiciary impotent, then that also renders the legislature/congress impotent, because it can pass laws and the president can simply not enforce them. The constitution contains checks and balances, including Courts who can rule on the laws.
I wonder again what is your concern, Classic Xer? There is no threat from any of the people that Trump has banned. Refugees are all thoroughly vetted already. The 7 countries on his list have not been the source of any deaths and even very few incidents of terrorist threats. There was no need to stop travel "until we can tell what's going on." There's nothing going on. Illegal immigration from Mexico is down, and the border is enforced. This is simply stoking prejudice and fear to get support from his base of voters, which includes yourself.
And Drump disrespects the CIA, which are the folks who have stopped terrorist threats through good intelligence.
And you keep conflating your red perspective with an "American" perspective. But the blue side is correct about what American values are, and not your side. They are not xenophobia; they are welcoming to refugees from oppression and poverty. So, you think Emma Lazarus and the Statue of Liberty are un-American? You think the Constitution is un-American? And America did not vote for this. Only the 18th century slaveholders created this Trump situation.
And the war against the IS is solely due to the blunder of your side in invading Iraq when it posed no threat and had not attacked us. That created the IS. Obama pulling troops out in 2011 in accord with an agreement of the Iraqi government with President Bush was not a blunder, and did not create the IS. Al Qaeda in Iraq aka the IS was already there; the Maliki government gave it new life.
And now Trump is in charge of Obama's campaign to help the Iraqis get rid of the IS. I am concerned that this is being endangered by his Muslim ban against travel from Iraq. If the alliance between the new Iraqi government and the USA is broken because of Trump's behavior, then the only way the USA can fight the IS is to invade Iraq again with ground troops, seize the oil fields as he wants, and start another war with Iraq and thereby revive the IS. But, that's what you voted for, so I hope you like it.
Unfortunately, you can't blame Bush for Obama's mistakes with me. Honestly, I didn't believe that Obama would foolish enough to actually pull our troops out of Iraq. I screwed up and over estimated his level of intelligence. Do I need to remind you that half of your side was directly involved with Bush's blunder? As I recall, the great John Kerry voted in favor of the war before he voted against it. BTW, my position on the war at the time was similar to Trump's. However, my position during the war was always in favor of America winning the war because the outcome mattered to me as an American. BTW, I've always viewed the blues as the primary reason we lost. Lesson learned, blues aren't worth sacrificing for as far as people are concerned. I'm usually ahead of the curve so you want to think about dying soon because blues are going to have a hard time convincing American born Gen Xrs to do much of anything for the blues other than sink the final nail in their political coffin.
The Iraqi government wanted American troops out and got them out by allowing them to stay only if they were to be subject to the laws of Iraq. Such was a consequence of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib,
Intellectual power is not a 100%-reliable proxy for competence or morality. President Obama knew when and where he needed to ask an expert who had specialized knowledge that he did not have and could not get some other way than to consult the experts. Knowing one's limitations is essential to wisdom.
Most Democrats accepted the statements of the Bush 43 Administration on Iraq (I would have) because they could not believe that a successor of George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington and "Honest" Abe Lincoln could lie to get America into a war for the glory of the President. What Donald Trump says he believed about the war in Iraq is whatever happens to be convenient in the moment... thus you cannot be sure of what Donald Trump believed in 2003. Never trust an unprincipled opportunist to be honest even about his feelings..
In view or the incompetence, dishonesty, and dictatorial style of Donald Trump as President, the last act of Blue Boomers (in the dozen years and 22 days) has yet to begin. The Millennial Generation is the one that has the numbers with which to knock out Red Boomers and X, and I doubt that they will have a problem letting Blue Boomers and X take key roles in the endgame of this Crisis Era.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(02-10-2017, 11:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (02-10-2017, 07:19 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (02-10-2017, 07:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I found it encouraging that the ruling was unanimous, including one Republican appointee. We have the Courts who might be able to defend the people from the most egregious un-American activities by the Trump team.
I assume that he had to maintain a good working relationship/standing among his liberal peers.
I assume that he knows the law and ruled accordingly.
I assume 2-1 vs 3-0 mattered as much to him as it mattered to me as far as the outcome was concerned. Unlike me, he's pretty much stuck where he's at now for the rest of his career.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
02-11-2017, 05:54 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2017, 06:14 AM by Classic-Xer.)
(02-11-2017, 04:57 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (02-11-2017, 04:15 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (02-10-2017, 02:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (02-10-2017, 02:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (02-10-2017, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Ninth Circuit recently agreed that Trump's executive order to stop certain aliens from entering the US should not be enforced. Trump responded by calling this a political decision, and announced that he would win easily on appeal. This makes me wonder if Trump is dealing with a well thought out legal position, or if he is shooting from the hip instinctively. To often, when confronted with any sort of opposition, his tendency is to insult and confront with little concern for maintaining contact with reality.
Wondering, I actually slogged through the Ninth Circuit's opinion. I'm not professional legal type, but it felt solid. If there is politics involved, and I suspect there is, it has been camouflaged well behind a wall of precedent. The Ninth walked through Trump's lawyer's claims point by point, and rebutted each point.
On the judicial side of things, conservative judges tend to strictly honor the intent of the authors of the law, while progressive judges might be concerned with the rights of the people. I'm thinking that at least in this case, Trump is over stretching his power while disregarding rights and due process. He's stepping on the toes of both sorts of judges. The unanimous decision by a panel appointed by presidents of both parties might suggest Trump will have a problem moving on.
This reflects an ongoing question on my part. Is Trump lying, or is he living in an alternate reality where he is right? Does he really believe he has some sort of reasonable legal argument?
Who elected the Ninth Circuit Court to be the president of the United States? Who elected them to be the law makers (legislative branch) of the United States? Whose rights are actually being disregarded? Do you like America? Do you like living in America? If our rights can be disregarded what makes you think that your rights can't be disregarded? I told you that you'd be wise to begin viewing issues from a blues perspective to viewing issues from more of an American's perspective? If you are incapable of doing so, the extreme partisan can be accurately applied to you by me. You keep falling back/slipping back to a blues perspective? Here we are as a nation, trying to get certain things in place national security wise before we (America) begin leading a war against ISIS (a result of a major blue blunder). Where do you think America is at with ISIS? Love's/respects/values them enough to keep them around or want's them all dead one way or another? Ask yourself this, how did America vote? Did bringing up Muslim concerns, young Muslim sob stories and using a Muslim who was still suffering from the emotional loss of a son as political pawn against Trump change the way America voted?
The point has been well made, that if Trump and his supporters can render the judiciary impotent, then that also renders the legislature/congress impotent, because it can pass laws and the president can simply not enforce them. The constitution contains checks and balances, including Courts who can rule on the laws.
I wonder again what is your concern, Classic Xer? There is no threat from any of the people that Trump has banned. Refugees are all thoroughly vetted already. The 7 countries on his list have not been the source of any deaths and even very few incidents of terrorist threats. There was no need to stop travel "until we can tell what's going on." There's nothing going on. Illegal immigration from Mexico is down, and the border is enforced. This is simply stoking prejudice and fear to get support from his base of voters, which includes yourself.
And Drump disrespects the CIA, which are the folks who have stopped terrorist threats through good intelligence.
And you keep conflating your red perspective with an "American" perspective. But the blue side is correct about what American values are, and not your side. They are not xenophobia; they are welcoming to refugees from oppression and poverty. So, you think Emma Lazarus and the Statue of Liberty are un-American? You think the Constitution is un-American? And America did not vote for this. Only the 18th century slaveholders created this Trump situation.
And the war against the IS is solely due to the blunder of your side in invading Iraq when it posed no threat and had not attacked us. That created the IS. Obama pulling troops out in 2011 in accord with an agreement of the Iraqi government with President Bush was not a blunder, and did not create the IS. Al Qaeda in Iraq aka the IS was already there; the Maliki government gave it new life.
And now Trump is in charge of Obama's campaign to help the Iraqis get rid of the IS. I am concerned that this is being endangered by his Muslim ban against travel from Iraq. If the alliance between the new Iraqi government and the USA is broken because of Trump's behavior, then the only way the USA can fight the IS is to invade Iraq again with ground troops, seize the oil fields as he wants, and start another war with Iraq and thereby revive the IS. But, that's what you voted for, so I hope you like it.
Unfortunately, you can't blame Bush for Obama's mistakes with me. Honestly, I didn't believe that Obama would foolish enough to actually pull our troops out of Iraq. I screwed up and over estimated his level of intelligence. Do I need to remind you that half of your side was directly involved with Bush's blunder? As I recall, the great John Kerry voted in favor of the war before he voted against it. BTW, my position on the war at the time was similar to Trump's. However, my position during the war was always in favor of America winning the war because the outcome mattered to me as an American. BTW, I've always viewed the blues as the primary reason we lost. Lesson learned, blues aren't worth sacrificing for as far as people are concerned. I'm usually ahead of the curve so you want to think about dying soon because blues are going to have a hard time convincing American born Gen Xrs to do much of anything for the blues other than sink the final nail in their political coffin.
The Iraqi government wanted American troops out and got them out by allowing them to stay only if they were to be subject to the laws of Iraq. Such was a consequence of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib,
Intellectual power is not a 100%-reliable proxy for competence or morality. President Obama knew when and where he needed to ask an expert who had specialized knowledge that he did not have and could not get some other way than to consult the experts. Knowing one's limitations is essential to wisdom.
Most Democrats accepted the statements of the Bush 43 Administration on Iraq (I would have) because they could not believe that a successor of George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington and "Honest" Abe Lincoln could lie to get America into a war for the glory of the President. What Donald Trump says he believed about the war in Iraq is whatever happens to be convenient in the moment... thus you cannot be sure of what Donald Trump believed in 2003. Never trust an unprincipled opportunist to be honest even about his feelings..
In view or the incompetence, dishonesty, and dictatorial style of Donald Trump as President, the last act of Blue Boomers (in the dozen years and 22 days) has yet to begin. The Millennial Generation is the one that has the numbers with which to knock out Red Boomers and X, and I doubt that they will have a problem letting Blue Boomers and X take key roles in the endgame of this Crisis Era.
So, he was basically powerless and he couldn't do anything about it. No argument here because that seems to be about right for Obama. BTW, the blue boomer era is currently in the process of ending.
I actually heard what he had to say about it in 2003 and I was surprised how similar our views and positions were at the time. I watch a lot of different programs on cable.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
02-11-2017, 09:12 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2017, 12:27 PM by Bob Butler 54.)
(02-10-2017, 02:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (02-10-2017, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Ninth Circuit recently agreed that Trump's executive order to stop certain aliens from entering the US should not be enforced. Trump responded by calling this a political decision, and announced that he would win easily on appeal. This makes me wonder if Trump is dealing with a well thought out legal position, or if he is shooting from the hip instinctively. To often, when confronted with any sort of opposition, his tendency is to insult and confront with little concern for maintaining contact with reality.
Wondering, I actually slogged through the Ninth Circuit's opinion. I'm not professional legal type, but it felt solid. If there is politics involved, and I suspect there is, it has been camouflaged well behind a wall of precedent. The Ninth walked through Trump's lawyer's claims point by point, and rebutted each point.
On the judicial side of things, conservative judges tend to strictly honor the intent of the authors of the law, while progressive judges might be concerned with the rights of the people. I'm thinking that at least in this case, Trump is over stretching his power while disregarding rights and due process. He's stepping on the toes of both sorts of judges. The unanimous decision by a panel appointed by presidents of both parties might suggest Trump will have a problem moving on.
This reflects an ongoing question on my part. Is Trump lying, or is he living in an alternate reality where he is right? Does he really believe he has some sort of reasonable legal argument?
Who elected the Ninth Circuit Court to be the president of the United States? Who elected them to be the law makers (legislative branch) of the United States? Whose rights are actually being disregarded? Do you like America? Do you like living in America? If our rights can be disregarded what makes you think that your rights can't be disregarded? I told you that you'd be wise to stop viewing issues from a blues perspective to begin viewing issues from more of an American's perspective? If you are incapable of doing so, the extreme partisan label that you use can be used and accurately applied to you by me. You keep falling back/slipping back to an emotionally guided blues perspective. Here we are as a nation, trying to get certain things in place national security wise before we (America) begin leading a war against ISIS (a result of a major blue blunder). Where do you think America is at with ISIS? Love's/respects/values them enough to keep them around for decades or want's them all dead one way or another? Ask yourself this, how did America vote? Did Democrats bringing up their Muslim concerns, young Muslim emotional sob stories about feeling scared about being judged by Americans and using a poor Muslim still suffering from the emotional loss of a son as political pawn against Trumps policies, change the way America voted?
Of course, judges are not presidents. They are appointed by presidents and approved by Congress. Their role is not to write laws or execute them, but to make sure the laws are being followed.
I actually sat down and read the ruling. The standings and rights questions are settled enough in existing precedent. For each of the following, there are court cases which establish or confirm the laws of the land.
- State colleges are port of the states, thus states have standing to bring court cases relating to their colleges.
- Students and faculty are part of said state colleges, thus the state has standing to bring court cases relating to state college students and faculty.
- Rights do not exist only for US Citizens. People have rights. If the government is interacting with the People, they have to respect said rights.
- A president can't just ignore all the laws and regulations regarding immigration. Yes, security is a valid concern, but one must establish that each individual, one at a time, is a risk.
For years, I would say one cannot discriminate when providing goods and services to the public, but there were exceptions for homes, churches and private clubs. Conservative and libertarian posters just wouldn't listen... until I reprinted the key passage from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Too many people put their own prejudices ahead of rule of law, maintaining ignorance of the law to validate their prejudices. That seems to be where you are coming from.
Again, you are most confused in labeling the red perspective as being 'American'. FDR is at least as American as Reagan. Thomas Jefferson is at least as American as Ayn Rand. The country is well and truly divided with both sides having strong elements of logic, history and tradition behind them. Your reports from inside of one alternate reality bubble aren't irrelevant, but you shouldn't mistake your bubble for reality.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
It is a question these days of what it would take for Drump to be impeached.
Loyal puppet Republicans are not likely to impeach him if he cooperated with or helped the Russians to hack into the Hillary Clinton campaign computer and publish the emails on wikileaks, in my judgement. It might be at most a nail in his future coffin.
Nixon was impeached, and senators were ready to oust him, after WH tapes revealed that Nixon ordered the FBI to suppress investigation into Watergate activities. If Trump does something similar regarding an FBI investigation, that might get some attention from some Republicans; maybe not enough.
Trump is now complaining about "so-called judges." Complaining won't get him impeached, but if Trump gets some of his lackeys to actually violate a Court order and enforce a Muslim travel ban, or some other Trump executive order the Courts have found to be illegal, that might get enough Republicans to oust him.
Posts: 868
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2016
02-11-2017, 05:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2017, 05:54 PM by Marypoza.)
(02-11-2017, 05:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It is a question these days of what it would take for Drump to be impeached.
Loyal puppet Republicans are not likely to impeach him if he cooperated with or helped the Russians to hack into the Hillary Clinton campaign computer and publish the emails on wikileaks, in my judgement. It might be at most a nail in his future coffin.
-- Assange has repeatedly denied that his sources are Russian. He has implied (but never came right out & said) that his sources are within the NSA. He has also said that a14 yo could hack into Podesta's email, so who knows.. besides Assange, that is
Eric Wrote:Nixon was impeached, and senators were ready to oust him, after WH tapes revealed that Nixon ordered the FBI to suppress investigation into Watergate activities. If Trump does something similar regarding an FBI investigation, that might get some attention from some Republicans; maybe not enough.
Trump is now complaining about "so-called judges." Complaining won't get him impeached, but if Trump gets some of his lackeys to actually violate a Court order and enforce a Muslim travel ban, or some other Trump executive order the Courts have found to be illegal, that might get enough Republicans to oust him.
-- why would anybody with 2 brain cells working want to impeach the Donald. Cuz then we get stuck with Pence
 my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
02-11-2017, 08:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2017, 08:29 PM by Eric the Green.)
(02-11-2017, 05:53 PM)Marypoza Wrote: (02-11-2017, 05:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It is a question these days of what it would take for Drump to be impeached.
Loyal puppet Republicans are not likely to impeach him if he cooperated with or helped the Russians to hack into the Hillary Clinton campaign computer and publish the emails on wikileaks, in my judgement. It might be at most a nail in his future coffin.
-- Assange has repeatedly denied that his sources are Russian. He has implied (but never came right out & said) that his sources are within the NSA. He has also said that a14 yo could hack into Podesta's email, so who knows.. besides Assange, that is
Believing Assange and other conspiracy weavers is silly, when the CIA and the FBI and news sources have confirmed that Russia was behind all the hacking.
Quote:Eric Wrote:Nixon was impeached, and senators were ready to oust him, after WH tapes revealed that Nixon ordered the FBI to suppress investigation into Watergate activities. If Trump does something similar regarding an FBI investigation, that might get some attention from some Republicans; maybe not enough.
Trump is now complaining about "so-called judges." Complaining won't get him impeached, but if Trump gets some of his lackeys to actually violate a Court order and enforce a Muslim travel ban, or some other Trump executive order the Courts have found to be illegal, that might get enough Republicans to oust him.
-- why would anybody with 2 brain cells working want to impeach the Donald. Cuz then we get stuck with Pence
I've explained that to you too. Pence is a wooden stick. He has about as much charisma as a dead turkey. His horoscope score is mediocre. Pence can be beaten in the next election. A Democrat would be tons better than either of them by 2020. And Trump is worse than Pence because he's a mental case. His appointments dispel any hope that he is in any way better than Pence would be. His cabinet and staff is the worst ever assembled by any leader, EVER. Bunch of billionaire reactionaries, culture warriors, war-mongers and Ayn Rand clones, most of them interested only in destroying the agency they are appointed to run, and taking away everything of value in America. That alone has already long since made Trump a TOTAL failure, and the most absurd ruler ever to walk on the stage of the Western World. Let alone his brazen disregard for the law, which is going to get him in trouble.
Posts: 868
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2016
02-11-2017, 10:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2017, 10:34 PM by Marypoza.)
(02-11-2017, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (02-11-2017, 05:53 PM)Marypoza Wrote: (02-11-2017, 05:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It is a question these days of what it would take for Drump to be impeached.
Loyal puppet Republicans are not likely to impeach him if he cooperated with or helped the Russians to hack into the Hillary Clinton campaign computer and publish the emails on wikileaks, in my judgement. It might be at most a nail in his future coffin.
-- Assange has repeatedly denied that his sources are Russian. He has implied (but never came right out & said) that his sources are within the NSA. He has also said that a14 yo could hack into Podesta's email, so who knows.. besides Assange, that is
Believing Assange and other conspiracy weavers is silly, when the CIA and the FBI and news sources have confirmed that Russia was behind all the hacking.
-- the DNC started that alternative fact bcuz a) they were picking a fight with Russia, & b) they were trying to distract the public from the contents of the emails. I've seen stories that go both ways- the CIA/FBI either confirmed or debunked the claim (shrug, whatever) Assange, otoh has been consistent in his denials. Besides, it really don't matter who gave Assange the emails. It's the content of the emails that matter
Quote:Eric Wrote:Nixon was impeached, and senators were ready to oust him, after WH tapes revealed that Nixon ordered the FBI to suppress investigation into Watergate activities. If Trump does something similar regarding an FBI investigation, that might get some attention from some Republicans; maybe not enough.
Trump is now complaining about "so-called judges." Complaining won't get him impeached, but if Trump gets some of his lackeys to actually violate a Court order and enforce a Muslim travel ban, or some other Trump executive order the Courts have found to be illegal, that might get enough Republicans to oust him.
-- why would anybody with 2 brain cells working want to impeach the Donald. Cuz then we get stuck with Pence
Eric Wrote:I've explained that to you too. Pence is a wooden stick. He has about as much charisma as a dead turkey. His horoscope score is mediocre. Pence can be beaten in the next election. A Democrat would be tons better than either of them by 2020. And Trump is worse than Pence because he's a mental case. His appointments dispel any hope that he is in any way better than Pence would be. His cabinet and staff is the worst ever assembled by any leader, EVER. Bunch of billionaire reactionaries, culture warriors, war-mongers and Ayn Rand clones, most of them interested only in destroying the agency they are appointed to run, and taking away everything of value in America. That alone has already long since made Trump a TOTAL failure, and the most absurd ruler ever to walk on the stage of the Western World. Let alone his brazen disregard for the law, which is going to get him in trouble.
-- l thought Pence's score is higher than the Donald's
I think Pence is scarey, & now we got Jordan here talking about a Prez Pence.... yecch
my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
02-11-2017, 10:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2017, 10:04 PM by Bob Butler 54.)
I'm seeing another pattern developing. If the Republicans try to hold a town hall meeting, they find it loaded with hostiles. The main stream media is inclined to report it as the public is angry at the Trump government. The Republicans answer with an accusation that a whole bunch of out of town provocateurs have been hired. As I haven't seen any real evidence of the latter, it's kind of hard to guess which side is creating more false news.
Net result? The acrimony is getting worse.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(02-11-2017, 09:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Of course, judges are not presidents. They are appointed by presidents and approved by Congress. Their role is not to write laws or execute them, but to make sure the laws are being followed.
I actually sat down and read the ruling. The standings and rights questions are settled enough in existing precedent. For each of the following, there are court cases which establish or confirm the laws of the land.
- State colleges are port of the states, thus states have standing to bring court cases relating to their colleges.
- Students and faculty are part of said state colleges, thus the state has standing to bring court cases relating to state college students and faculty.
- Rights do not exist only for US Citizens. People have rights. If the government is interacting with the People, they have to respect said rights.
- A president can't just ignore all the laws and regulations regarding immigration. Yes, security is a valid concern, but one must establish that each individual, one at a time, is a risk.
For years, I would say one cannot discriminate when providing goods and services to the public, but there were exceptions for homes, churches and private clubs. Conservative and libertarian posters just wouldn't listen... until I reprinted the key passage from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Too many people put their own prejudices ahead of rule of law, maintaining ignorance of the law to validate their prejudices. That seems to be where you are coming from.
Again, you are most confused in labeling the red perspective as being 'American'. FDR is at least as American as Reagan. Thomas Jefferson is at least as American as Ayn Rand. The country is well and truly divided with both sides having strong elements of logic, history and tradition behind them. Your reports from inside of one alternate reality bubble aren't irrelevant, but you shouldn't mistake your bubble for reality.
I have always represented an American's perspective and I've always identified myself as an American. I have always identified myself as an independent voter who is not directly affiliated with either major party. I do not identify with the term Christianity or view myself as a Christian. I don't identify with the term rural or view myself as being rural. I have never identified with the color red or viewed myself as a red either. So, you have a problem with me because I don't exactly fit the liberal's red stereotype or the liberal stereotype you've been foolishly applying and placing on me for years. The truth is that I'm suburban voter who doesn't care about race, who doesn't care about abortion, who doesn't care about gay marriage or people being gay in general, who doesn't live by a Bible, who ignores the feelings and opinions of the Pope, who opted out of college because he view college as being needed to achieve his goals, who opted for a technical degree instead that took a lot less time and costed a lot less and eventually became a small business owner.
That's me, you can learn something and adjust your liberal view or you continue acting like a typical dip shit blue and continue paying for it image wise as well as politically. You're about the same age as my older siblings and their group of friends. So, I'm actually pretty familiar with the bulk of your age group. I assume that life was much easier for you than them based on the ideals that you're still carrying, so to speak. I say that because, whatever hippie/Democratic ideals that they entered their adult life with were either discredited, didn't hold up to the realities, or completely failed and dumped by the time that I was entering adult life with my own ideals. BTW, I only see one bubble here and a growing number of individuals who are speaking against those who are associated with the bubble.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(02-11-2017, 10:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I only see one bubble here and a growing number of individuals who are speaking against those who are associated with the bubble.
Well, yes, it is really obvious that you're seeing only one perspective. So many are similarly limited. More important even than the issues is the attitude and closed mind that makes folks unable to open themselves to other perspectives.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(02-12-2017, 02:00 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (02-11-2017, 10:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I only see one bubble here and a growing number of individuals who are speaking against those who are associated with the bubble.
Well, yes, it is really obvious that you're seeing only one perspective. So many are similarly limited. More important even than the issues is the attitude and closed mind that makes folks unable to open themselves to other perspectives.
I've been seeing the blue's perspective and disagreeing with their perspectives and pointing out the major flaws with their perspective and my issues with their perspective for years. So, you're right, I've only been focused on one (the blue) perspective with all other perspectives being more or less side lined or voluntarily removed. Did you know this?
|
