Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
09-07-2016, 12:17 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2016, 12:21 AM by Eric the Green.)
The drip drip drip of bogus attacks on the Clinton Fdn is the reason for her drop in the polls. Or I should say, because the people and the media are stupid.
From MediaMatters
Still Waiting For Newspaper Editorials Demanding The Trump Foundation Be Shut Down
Blog ››› September 6, 2016 10:49 AM EDT ››› ERIC BOEHLERT
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/09/06/...own/212853
Adding to a cavalcade of campaign condemnations, a string of major newspaper editorial boards in recent weeks stepped forward to announce that, in the name of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest, Bill and Hillary Clinton needed to shut down their successful Clinton Foundation.
Conceding that recent news reports hadn’t proven any actual wrongdoing or lawbreaking with the foundation and its connection the State Department when Clinton was secretary of state, editorials from Washington Post, Boston Globe, and USA Today, among others, were nonetheless adamant: Shut it down.
Columnists at Slate, New York and The Wall Street Journal also jumped in, as did an array of TV talkers anxious to add their voices to the media choir demanding a global charity be shut down because the optics didn’t look quite right. And several outlets insisted that waiting until after the election for foundation action wasn’t “good enough.”
Everyone, it seemed, was in heated agreement.
“Even if they’ve done nothing illegal, the foundation will always look too much like a conflict of interest for comfort.” (Boston Globe)
“[T]he only way to eliminate the odor surrounding the foundation is to wind it down and put it in mothballs.” (USA Today)
“Impressions such as these are corrosive to national institutions.” (Washington Post)
On and on the editorials went, patiently explaining to Clinton what she needed to do to eliminate budding concerns within the Beltway press; how she had to shutter her landmark charity in order to please the optics police.
Reading the proclamations, it was clear to readers that even the appearance of impropriety when it comes to politicians and charitable foundations must be met with swift, pro-active and even drastic action.
So what explains the deafening editorial board silence about the Donald J. Trump Foundation in the wake of the shocking news report that in 2013 it sent an illegal $25,000 donation to a political group supporting Florida’s attorney general, Pam Bondi? At a time, her office was considering opening a fraud investigation into Trump University and widespread allegations the company had cheated students. After the group supporting Bondi received the large Trump check, which she reportedly personally solicited, her office announced it wasn’t going to investigate Trump University.
Where’s the collective demand that the Trump Foundation be shut down because of conflicts?
Not only does the payoff reek of a quid pro quo arrangement, but the generous Foundation donation was also against the law because as a registered non-profit organization, the Trump Foundation isn’t allowed to make political contributions. It appears the Foundation may have taken steps to cover up the donation by by listing the recipient of the funds as a Kansas-based charity in tax forms, according to the Washington Post report. After the $25,000 check was brought to light earlier this year, Trump’s organization paid a $2,500 fine to the IRS.
Given the hyper attention paid to the Clinton Foundation, and the relentless media search for wrongdoing, the Trump revelations are astounding: They seem to represent precisely the type of naked misdeed the press has been trying to uncover with regards to Clinton. But instead, the foundation’s wrongdoing is attached to the Republican nominee and the campaign press reaction has been muted, to say the least.
On the Sunday morning talk shows this week, the story was occasionally referenced by guests, but CBS’s Face The Nation host John Dickerson was the only host to bring up the Trump/Bondi controversy.
Meanwhile, according to a search of CNN transcripts via Nexis, “Trump Foundation” was mentioned in one on-air report on the all-news channel between Monday, August 29, through Monday, September 5. By contrast, “Clinton Foundation” was mentioned in dozens of CNN reports during that same time period.
Keep in mind, the constant media churning about Clinton “optics” revolve around a global charity that represents a textbook example of how to build a modern-day foundation for giving. “If Hillary Clinton wasn’t running for president, the Clinton Foundation would be seen as one of the great humanitarian charities of our generation,” Daniel Borochoff of Charity Watch recently told CNN. (The foundation receives exceptional marks from watchdog organizations.)
The Clinton Foundation's sterling reputation has now been tarnished, in part because the press has decided to go all in with the GOP’s smear campaign against the charity. It’s decided to overhype trivial revelations about Foundation contacts and meetings that took place years ago.
But when the Trump Foundation is found to have illegally donated to a state attorney general who was contemplating fraud charges against a Trump company? Suddenly the referees on newspaper editorial boards fall silent.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2016, 12:14 AM)Galen Wrote: (09-06-2016, 03:10 PM)Odin Wrote: (09-04-2016, 12:13 AM)taramarie Wrote: were they all really like him?  that is a frightening thought. I am glad our kiwi boomers have more sense.
No they weren't, Galen is making ridiculous, sweeping generalizations (or as Bob would say, "vile stereotypes") because of his own bitterness and hate. People like Eric are a small minority of Boomers.
How the hell would you know? The only real difference between Boomers on the right or left is what god they worship. Either the traditional Christian God or the state. In all other respects they tend to have pretty much the same destructive idealism and an inability to leave people the hell alone.
I leave you alone a lot, but at other times I can resist baiting you. It's easy. All I have to do is speak the truth, and the venom and nonsense come pouring out. "Give 'em hell" Eric! 
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
CBS/AP June 5, 2016, 1:37 AM
[b]Former Texas official says he was told to drop Trump University probe]/b]
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-texas...ity-probe/
WASHINGTON -- Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton moved to muzzle a former state regulator who says he was ordered in 2010 to drop a fraud investigation into Trump University for political reasons.
Paxton's office issued a cease and desist letter to former Deputy Chief of Consumer Protection John Owens after he made public copies of a 14-page internal summary of the state's case against Donald Trump for scamming millions from students of his now-defunct real estate seminar.
Owens, now retired, said his team had built a solid case against the now-presumptive Republican presidential nominee, but was told to drop it after Trump's company agreed to cease operations in Texas.
The former state regulator told The Associated Press on Friday that decision was highly unusual and left the bilked students on their own to attempt to recover their tuition money from the celebrity businessman.
Trump University is the target of two lawsuits in San Diego and one in New York that accuse the business of fleecing students with unfulfilled promises to teach secrets of success in real estate.........
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2016, 12:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I leave you alone a lot, but at other times I can resist baiting you. It's easy. All I have to do is speak the truth, and the venom and nonsense come pouring out. "Give 'em hell" Eric!
You realize there is a partisan symmetry to this? All someone centered on a red perspective has to do is speak what they perceive of as the truth, and you will respond with what they perceive of as venom? From the sidelines it's like watching a tennis match.
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: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2016, 12:59 AM)taramarie Wrote: (09-07-2016, 12:37 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (09-07-2016, 12:21 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: I leave you alone a lot, but at other times I can resist baiting you. It's easy. All I have to do is speak the truth, and the venom and nonsense come pouring out. "Give 'em hell" Eric!
You realize there is a partisan symmetry to this? All someone centered on a red perspective has to do is speak what they perceive of as the truth, and you will respond with what they perceive of as venom? From the sidelines it's like watching a tennis match.
From a real side-liner observing Americans now THAT is the truth.
I am not exactly happy with the Republicans either. Come to think, of it the Libertarian Party is pretty lame these days but they have taken to nominating Republicans these days.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
09-07-2016, 01:29 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2016, 01:29 AM by Galen.)
(09-07-2016, 01:20 AM)taramarie Wrote: (09-07-2016, 01:14 AM)Galen Wrote: (09-07-2016, 12:59 AM)taramarie Wrote: (09-07-2016, 12:37 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (09-07-2016, 12:21 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: I leave you alone a lot, but at other times I can resist baiting you. It's easy. All I have to do is speak the truth, and the venom and nonsense come pouring out. "Give 'em hell" Eric!
You realize there is a partisan symmetry to this? All someone centered on a red perspective has to do is speak what they perceive of as the truth, and you will respond with what they perceive of as venom? From the sidelines it's like watching a tennis match.
From a real side-liner observing Americans now THAT is the truth.
I am not exactly happy with the Republicans either. Come to think, of it the Libertarian Party is pretty lame these days but they have taken to nominating Republicans these days.
All have their strengths and weaknesses. What amazes me is how polarized it can get over there. Especially culturally at times. I have never seen anything quite like it.
That is what happens when you try to make everyone and everything the same through government force. Unless you have a homogeneous society, which the US has never really had, it tends to go this way. Everyone tries to get the ring for himself. If you want to get an idea of how limited the Federal Government was supposed to be I would suggest reading the US Constitution and then take a good hard look at what it does today.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
09-07-2016, 01:39 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2016, 01:58 AM by Eric the Green.)
(09-07-2016, 12:37 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (09-07-2016, 12:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I leave you alone a lot, but at other times I can resist baiting you. It's easy. All I have to do is speak the truth, and the venom and nonsense come pouring out. "Give 'em hell" Eric!
You realize there is a partisan symmetry to this? All someone centered on a red perspective has to do is speak what they perceive of as the truth, and you will respond with what they perceive of as venom? From the sidelines it's like watching a tennis match.
May the side that has the truth, win. That's my side, I say. All I can do is speak what I perceive as the truth. And it's not venom. It's just a case of, the truth will out. The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.
Just because there are two sides to a debate, does not mean the truth is necessarily in the middle.
Remember, for example, how John Oliver pointed out that people think that the two sides of the climate change debate are of equal weight, with the truth in the middle, just because the media presents it that way?
I reserve my venom for people like Terror-marie, who gang up on people and position themselves as correctors of behavior, but exhibit the worst possible behavior themselves, and without any humor at all (and, I add, with no forgiveness at all and grudges held forever). Well, both you and Galen do that too, to a lesser extent. But, really, my expressing venom doesn't accomplish much. My aim is to correct, discern, discover and explore ideas and policies. Attacks on people and trying to correct them personally mean less than nothing. Debating and discovering the theories and the evidence matters.
So, just claiming that I am partisan and expressing venom means nothing. The substance of what I say, and whether I am correct on the issues and facts or not, means something. So it goes for everyone here.
But as Galen pointed out, your remark is misplaced, because Galen is not on the red team, although he is right-wing in many ways. People may disagree about what's the truth, yet agree on many things nevertheless; as you and I do. There aren't clear-cut teams here.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2016, 01:29 AM)Galen Wrote: (09-07-2016, 01:20 AM)taramarie Wrote: (09-07-2016, 01:14 AM)Galen Wrote: (09-07-2016, 12:59 AM)taramarie Wrote: (09-07-2016, 12:37 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You realize there is a partisan symmetry to this? All someone centered on a red perspective has to do is speak what they perceive of as the truth, and you will respond with what they perceive of as venom? From the sidelines it's like watching a tennis match.
From a real side-liner observing Americans now THAT is the truth.
I am not exactly happy with the Republicans either. Come to think, of it the Libertarian Party is pretty lame these days but they have taken to nominating Republicans these days.
All have their strengths and weaknesses. What amazes me is how polarized it can get over there. Especially culturally at times. I have never seen anything quite like it.
That is what happens when you try to make everyone and everything the same through government force. Unless you have a homogeneous society, which the US has never really had, it tends to go this way. Everyone tries to get the ring for himself. If you want to get an idea of how limited the Federal Government was supposed to be I would suggest reading the US Constitution and then take a good hard look at what it does today.
The problem with that is, society needs to accomplish things together. Individuals acting alone does not accomplish enough for society to get along or make life better. I know it is a utopian theory that individuals acting alone will by an invisible hand do what's best for society. Something like this may even work someday, if and when people are guided spiritually from within. But many people agree that this theory does not work, and that organization is needed. Decisions have to be made and laws have to be passed, and this costs money; and a minority will not necessarily agree with what's done. Those who lose at first may come back and win later. Tides change, trends take hold, and society moves forward or backward. Meanwhile, coercion may be needed against those who do not obey the law. Society works best when people obey the law voluntarily, and when the laws are fair so that people want to obey them.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2016, 01:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (09-07-2016, 01:29 AM)Galen Wrote: (09-07-2016, 01:20 AM)taramarie Wrote: (09-07-2016, 01:14 AM)Galen Wrote: (09-07-2016, 12:59 AM)taramarie Wrote: From a real side-liner observing Americans now THAT is the truth.
I am not exactly happy with the Republicans either. Come to think, of it the Libertarian Party is pretty lame these days but they have taken to nominating Republicans these days.
All have their strengths and weaknesses. What amazes me is how polarized it can get over there. Especially culturally at times. I have never seen anything quite like it.
That is what happens when you try to make everyone and everything the same through government force. Unless you have a homogeneous society, which the US has never really had, it tends to go this way. Everyone tries to get the ring for himself. If you want to get an idea of how limited the Federal Government was supposed to be I would suggest reading the US Constitution and then take a good hard look at what it does today.
The problem with that is, society needs to accomplish things together. Individuals acting alone does not accomplish enough for society to get along or make life better. I know it is a utopian theory that individuals acting alone will by an invisible hand do what's best for society. Something like this may even work someday, if and when people are guided spiritually from within. But many people agree that this theory does not work, and that organization is needed. Decisions have to be made and laws have to be passed, and this costs money; and a minority will not necessarily agree with what's done. Those who lose at first may come back and win later. Tides change, trends take hold, and society moves forward or backward. Meanwhile, coercion may be needed against those who do not obey the law. Society works best when people obey the law voluntarily, and when the laws are fair so that people want to obey them.
Only a very limited set of powers were delegated to the Federal Government. If that is insufficient then there is an amendment process for that. I wonder how much of the power usurped by the feds would survive that process?
You might want to contemplate our current situation in light of the following quotes by Jefferson:
- Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.
- Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.
- In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
09-07-2016, 02:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2016, 02:33 AM by Eric the Green.)
(09-07-2016, 02:11 AM)Galen Wrote: (09-07-2016, 01:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (09-07-2016, 01:29 AM)Galen Wrote: (09-07-2016, 01:20 AM)taramarie Wrote: (09-07-2016, 01:14 AM)Galen Wrote: I am not exactly happy with the Republicans either. Come to think, of it the Libertarian Party is pretty lame these days but they have taken to nominating Republicans these days.
All have their strengths and weaknesses. What amazes me is how polarized it can get over there. Especially culturally at times. I have never seen anything quite like it.
That is what happens when you try to make everyone and everything the same through government force. Unless you have a homogeneous society, which the US has never really had, it tends to go this way. Everyone tries to get the ring for himself. If you want to get an idea of how limited the Federal Government was supposed to be I would suggest reading the US Constitution and then take a good hard look at what it does today.
The problem with that is, society needs to accomplish things together. Individuals acting alone does not accomplish enough for society to get along or make life better. I know it is a utopian theory that individuals acting alone will by an invisible hand do what's best for society. Something like this may even work someday, if and when people are guided spiritually from within. But many people agree that this theory does not work, and that organization is needed. Decisions have to be made and laws have to be passed, and this costs money; and a minority will not necessarily agree with what's done. Those who lose at first may come back and win later. Tides change, trends take hold, and society moves forward or backward. Meanwhile, coercion may be needed against those who do not obey the law. Society works best when people obey the law voluntarily, and when the laws are fair so that people want to obey them.
Only a very limited set of powers were delegated to the Federal Government. If that is insufficient then there is an amendment process for that. I wonder how much of the power usurped by the feds would survive that process?
You might want to contemplate our current situation in light of the following quotes by Jefferson:
- Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.
- Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.
- In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids.
Being a fairly typical liberal, I would probably agree with you (if you say) that the president has usurped war-making power, using the phrase "commander in chief" and forgetting the power of congress to declare war.
Since the preamble includes "promote the general welfare" as an aim for the federal government, and allows the congress to make such laws as it deems necessary, I would disagree with you (if you say) that the federal government has no right to collect taxes for the purpose of investing in infrastructure or providing relief and assistance to the needy.
I note that my perspective is not limited to "Boomers."
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2016, 12:17 AM)Galen Wrote: (09-06-2016, 03:18 PM)Odin Wrote: (09-04-2016, 07:47 PM)Galen Wrote: (09-04-2016, 05:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: (09-04-2016, 02:07 AM)Galen Wrote: There is a couple of things that you are forgetting. One is that I don't really do red or blue and both teams tend to embody the worst of the Boomers. While their objectives may be different the means often tend to be the same.
Eric the (Green) is not merely an echo but rather still acts as if its 1968. If he were living in Oregon he would have moved to Eugene which is where all the hippies went, this process started about 1985. In the present Eugene seems to be populated by militant vegans. A friend of mine was working at HP when one of them complained to her about eating a hamburger during a meeting. In typical Xer fashion she started eating hamburgers at this vegan. Militant vegans are the only people on Earth it is possible to eat a hamburger at.
Here is one thing you need to know about politics: Seventy percent of the population doesn't really matter because they are just picking the lesser of evils. The remaining thirty percent are the ones that do matter because they are busy lining up the rest who do about as much thinking as a herd of cattle. This is the crowd that tends to embody the worst of any population because they are doing even less thinking than the herd is.
Bob is looking back on the Awakening as a good time because for most of the Boomers it was. They were simply too blitzed out or self-absorbed to notice much of anything. The rest of us really didn't enjoy the experience.
You are trafficking in stereotypes again.
1. People can be priced into a vegan diet. It is safer and less expensive, and probably healthier. I'm from a farm family, and at my age going vegetarian would be almost as much a denial of the family culture as getting involved in an interracial marriage.
2. People are not voting for the 'lesser evil'; a very bad nominee like George McGovern got 37.52% of the popular vote in 1972. 36.54% of the electorate voted for Alf Landon against the FDR steamroller in 1936. I'm not saying that either was a really bad politician; it's just that everything went wrong with them as campaigners. Do you really want to say that people who voted for Landon or McGovern were parts of the herd?
You are likely to find demographics (college-educated people in 1936 for Landon, blacks in 1972 for McGovern) who 'voted wrong'.
3. The Boom Awakening may have been the optimal time for me to be a teenager. Even my authoritarian parents had to lighten up a bit.
I have encountered plenty of militant vegans myself in the People's Republic of Portland and they behave in much the same way out of the same sense of outraged moral superiority. There just seem to be more of them in Eugene. Ironically, one group that often goes vegetarian and does not generally behave this way are the Seventh-Day Adventists.
Given the rather limited choices, in reality they are voting for the lesser of evils. Clearly there is some disagreement on what lesser evil might actually be. In the end the herd tends to either vote for one of the major parties and refuse in general to consider any other possibility. When I ask people about that they invariably tell me that they don't want to vote for someone who can't possibly win. Sounds like herd behavior to me.
As I said before, it may have been good for you but it tended to suck for anybody else. The usual self-absorbed behavior I have come to expect from Boomers in general.
The militant Vegan wackos are of all generations, and most Vegans actually hate the wackos.
I have yet to meet anything other than a militant Vegan. They seem to have the same self-righteous attitude the bicyclists have around here.
Usually if everyone around you seems like an asshole, then the actual asshole is you. 
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2016, 01:14 AM)Galen Wrote: Come to think, of it the Libertarian Party is pretty lame these days but they have taken to nominating Republicans these days.
Libertarians are whining whining about Johnson having TOO MUCH practical real world experience in government, which tells me everything I need to know about the Libertarians.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2016, 02:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Being a fairly typical liberal, I would probably agree with you (if you say) that the president has usurped war-making power, using the phrase "commander in chief" and forgetting the power of congress to declare war.
Since the preamble includes "promote the general welfare" as an aim for the federal government, and allows the congress to make such laws as it deems necessary, I would disagree with you (if you say) that the federal government has no right to collect taxes for the purpose of investing in infrastructure or providing relief and assistance to the needy.
I note that my perspective is not limited to "Boomers."
Words in the preamble should not be interpreted as changing the meaning of specific lines in the body of a constitution. There was a clear intent to limit the powers of the federal government which the Supreme Court has disregarded.
The first major disagreement on this line came when the north wanted to use federal funds to dredge harbors, while others declared that dredging harbors was not the same as building post roads. Dredging is not authorized by the Constitution, but maintaining post roads is. The intent of the authors is quite clear. These days, any infrastructure improvement is improperly accepted as proper.
Inflating federal power was certainly not started by boomers. It started well before the Civil War. A lot of the recent disregard for limited powers started with FDR. The Great Depression was an urgent emergency. He couldn't wait for the amendment process. He just did stuff, struggling with a conservative Supreme Court, often getting slapped down early, but in time as the People kept reelecting him, the Supremes caved in. I can sympathize with much of what was done in FDRs time. There was much need. However, the tradition of ignoring the Constitution was taken to a new level which is problematic. It isn't just the liberals who do it.
If a Supreme Court full of Scalia style strict interpretation advocates were suddenly to start ruling on the Constitution as written, a constitutional convention would have to be called promptly. We no longer have an effective written constitution. I'm inclined to think we should have a convention anyway. Either party, given a majority on the court, will start pulling stuff like Citizen's United. This is not the time for a convention. The country is too divided to agree on anything. The time for a convention is the 4T 1T cusp, just after the crisis has provided lessons learned, when the mood of the country is no more changes, but set the recent changes in stone.
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: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Here's an early and decisive endorsement from the Dallas Morning News, one of the more conservative big-city newspapers in America.
Quote:There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.
We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense.
We've been critical of Clinton's handling of certain issues in the past. But unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service and a willingness to delve into real policy.
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editor...sident.ece
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: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2016, 06:56 AM)Odin Wrote: Usually if everyone around you seems like an asshole, then the actual asshole is you.
Bingo!
What people say about the rest of humanity as a whole says what that person is himself. One of the simplest tests for trustworthiness among retail sales clerks (people surrounded by all the accoutrements of wealth on the job, large amounts of money going into the till, much fabricated glamour, yet so badly underpaid that they can never expect to get them) is to ask what proportion of humanity is generally trustworthy. The trustworthy people tell you that employee pilferage is done by very few people. The dishonest ones say in effect "Doesn't everyone steal?"
In mental wards many of the patients might tell you that they are the only sane person in the asylum.
I can only imagine what child molesters have to say about the 'normality' of their perversion.
If you really want people to expose the scorpions in their souls, then ask them about people of religion (especially Judaism) or ethnicity different from themselves.
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: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2016, 09:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (09-07-2016, 06:56 AM)Odin Wrote: Usually if everyone around you seems like an asshole, then the actual asshole is you.
Bingo!
I'll second the bingo.
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
09-07-2016, 10:54 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2016, 11:07 AM by Eric the Green.)
(09-07-2016, 07:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (09-07-2016, 02:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Being a fairly typical liberal, I would probably agree with you (if you say) that the president has usurped war-making power, using the phrase "commander in chief" and forgetting the power of congress to declare war.
Since the preamble includes "promote the general welfare" as an aim for the federal government, and allows the congress to make such laws as it deems necessary, I would disagree with you (if you say) that the federal government has no right to collect taxes for the purpose of investing in infrastructure or providing relief and assistance to the needy.
I note that my perspective is not limited to "Boomers."
Words in the preamble should not be interpreted as changing the meaning of specific lines in the body of a constitution. There was a clear intent to limit the powers of the federal government which the Supreme Court has disregarded.
But the Constitution clearly states that the Supreme Court decides what is to be regarded and what is not. The only "limits" (besides those stated in the bill of rights and other amendments) are spelled out in section 9 of article 1.
Quote:The first major disagreement on this line came when the north wanted to use federal funds to dredge harbors, while others declared that dredging harbors was not the same as building post roads. Dredging is not authorized by the Constitution, but maintaining post roads is. The intent of the authors is quite clear. These days, any infrastructure improvement is improperly accepted as proper.
That, as you know, is an improper and very conservative literal interpretation. Article 1, Section 8 says the congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the USA. Article 2 section 3 says that the president shall see that the laws are faithfully executed. The idea that such powers be limited to the needs of the 1780s as spelled out in the enumerated powers is a wrong interpretation, and such an interpretation could never meet the needs of the country. The constitution says the congress shall make laws necessary to carry out the enumerated powers and all other powers allowed under the constitution. It did not say that only the forgoing powers shall exist.
Quote:Inflating federal power was certainly not started by boomers. It started well before the Civil War. A lot of the recent disregard for limited powers started with FDR. The Great Depression was an urgent emergency. He couldn't wait for the amendment process. He just did stuff, struggling with a conservative Supreme Court, often getting slapped down early, but in time as the People kept reelecting him, the Supremes caved in. I can sympathize with much of what was done in FDRs time. There was much need. However, the tradition of ignoring the Constitution was taken to a new level which is problematic. It isn't just the liberals who do it.
If a Supreme Court full of Scalia style strict interpretation advocates were suddenly to start ruling on the Constitution as written, a constitutional convention would have to be called promptly. We no longer have an effective written constitution. I'm inclined to think we should have a convention anyway. Either party, given a majority on the court, will start pulling stuff like Citizen's United. This is not the time for a convention. The country is too divided to agree on anything. The time for a convention is the 4T 1T cusp, just after the crisis has provided lessons learned, when the mood of the country is no more changes, but set the recent changes in stone.
I don't disagree with much there, but the idea that we should need to rewrite the constitution every time the president and congress agree to do something which goes beyond the enumerated powers, would mean we would have to convene such a convention as an ongoing body. The Constitution provides for making the laws that are needed for the needs of the time, without having to call conventions or make amendments all the time.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-07-2016, 06:56 AM)Odin Wrote: (09-07-2016, 12:17 AM)Galen Wrote: (09-06-2016, 03:18 PM)Odin Wrote: (09-04-2016, 07:47 PM)Galen Wrote: (09-04-2016, 05:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: You are trafficking in stereotypes again.
1. People can be priced into a vegan diet. It is safer and less expensive, and probably healthier. I'm from a farm family, and at my age going vegetarian would be almost as much a denial of the family culture as getting involved in an interracial marriage.
2. People are not voting for the 'lesser evil'; a very bad nominee like George McGovern got 37.52% of the popular vote in 1972. 36.54% of the electorate voted for Alf Landon against the FDR steamroller in 1936. I'm not saying that either was a really bad politician; it's just that everything went wrong with them as campaigners. Do you really want to say that people who voted for Landon or McGovern were parts of the herd?
You are likely to find demographics (college-educated people in 1936 for Landon, blacks in 1972 for McGovern) who 'voted wrong'.
3. The Boom Awakening may have been the optimal time for me to be a teenager. Even my authoritarian parents had to lighten up a bit.
I have encountered plenty of militant vegans myself in the People's Republic of Portland and they behave in much the same way out of the same sense of outraged moral superiority. There just seem to be more of them in Eugene. Ironically, one group that often goes vegetarian and does not generally behave this way are the Seventh-Day Adventists.
Given the rather limited choices, in reality they are voting for the lesser of evils. Clearly there is some disagreement on what lesser evil might actually be. In the end the herd tends to either vote for one of the major parties and refuse in general to consider any other possibility. When I ask people about that they invariably tell me that they don't want to vote for someone who can't possibly win. Sounds like herd behavior to me.
As I said before, it may have been good for you but it tended to suck for anybody else. The usual self-absorbed behavior I have come to expect from Boomers in general.
The militant Vegan wackos are of all generations, and most Vegans actually hate the wackos.
I have yet to meet anything other than a militant Vegan. They seem to have the same self-righteous attitude the bicyclists have around here.
Usually if everyone around you seems like an asshole, then the actual asshole is you.
If everyone seemed like an asshole to him, he wouldn't be able to single out the vegans and bicyclists.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(09-07-2016, 10:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But the Constitution clearly states that the Supreme Court decides what is to be regarded and what is not. The only "limits" (besides those stated in the bill of rights and other amendments) are spelled out in section 9 of article 1.
There were procedures written to change the constitution, including amendments and constitutional conventions. These both involved the approval of a supermajority of states. The Supreme Court was never intended to allow rewrites of the Constitution, but to interpret it.
(09-07-2016, 10:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: That, as you know, is an improper and very conservative literal interpretation. Article 1, Section 8 says the congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the USA. Article 2 section 3 says that the president shall see that the laws are faithfully executed. The idea that such powers be limited to the needs of the 1780s as spelled out in the enumerated powers is a wrong interpretation, and such an interpretation could never meet the needs of the country. The constitution says the congress shall make laws necessary to carry out the enumerated powers and all other powers allowed under the constitution. It did not say that only the forgoing powers shall exist.
The theory on which the constitution was written is that the states remain sovereign powers, that the federal government only has those powers specifically enumerated. This is why the powers were enumerated. What you consider an 'improper and very conservative" interpretation is the interpretation used while the authors of the constitution were still alive.
As the proposed constitution was being ratified, there was a big debate on whether a Bill of Rights was necessary. Some said no. As the constitution did not enumerate a power to censor speech, what need was there for a Right of Free Speech? As there was no enumerated power to regulate firearms, what need was there for a Right to Keep and Bear Arms? While this logic seems sound enough, during the debates leading up to ratification, an awful lot of people wouldn't pass the new constitution without suspenders to go with the belt. They wanted a Bill of Rights. It didn't look like the Constitution would be ratified until both groups agreed that the first order of business would be to pass a Bill of Rights. That this debate took place at all clearly indicated that the original intent of the authors was that the list of enumerated powers was intended to be meaningful and binding.
(09-07-2016, 10:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't disagree with much there, but the idea that we should need to rewrite the constitution every time the president and congress agree to do something which goes beyond the enumerated powers, would mean we would have to convene such a convention as an ongoing body. The Constitution provides for making the laws that are needed for the needs of the time, without having to call conventions or make amendments all the time.
The original intent was not that the federal government would get to expand its power whenever it feels like expanding its power. Expanding federal power was supposed to be ratified by a supermajority of states. Granted, the founding fathers did not anticipate how technology would explode, that the Industrial Revolution would essentially render a document perfectly adequate for an essentially agricultural society quite obsolete. At various times, the constitution was ignored because it was necessary. At other times, it was ignored for more nefarious purposes. The Jim Crow Supreme Court ruled that as the federal government is granted no police powers, it has no power to enforce the Bill of Rights. Thus it was up to the southern states to protect the rights of negroes. They... didn't.
Constitutions are not supposed to go into bitter detail. The Constitution is very short. At this point, I would not add a new line saying the federal government shall have the power to dredge harbors. I'd say it has the power to build and maintain interstate transportation infrastructure. Or do we really want to give them that blanch a carte? Still, the constitution for the European Union is much longer than ours. An awful lot of issues have become important since the founding father's time. I would like to see them seriously addressed. I would badly like to see a return to a limited government whose powers are limited by law. What we've got now is a runaway truck.
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: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
Are you familiar the view that the US is like the UK, with what effectively is a virtual constitution?
https://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2013/12/...l-history/
The original concept of constitutional change by Amendment was proven false in the aftermath of the Civil War when Amendments were passed and then blatantly ignored without consequence for 70 years. After this abrogration of the Constitution it made less sense to use amendments to make fundamental changes and we moved to the British method.
|
