Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 2510 of 4573 (840429)
09-29-2018 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2509 by Chiroptera
09-29-2018 11:40 AM


Re: More Kavanaugh analysis
Chiroptera writes:
My take-a-way:
The allegations being made against Kavanaugh are much more credible;
he is more a partisan conservative than an impartial arbiter of the law; and
he really is a stereotypical "politician', ready to bend or stretch the truth if he believes it will advance his cause.
Yes, yes, yes. There is no honor among thieves or politicians. They all become so focused on molding their message to what will get them enough votes that they become unable to distinguish truth from fiction or lies.
But it is inevitable that this be so. Those that don't focus on molding their message to get votes don't get elected. Even the politicians who seem most likely to take stances on the merits and what's right rather than being blind vote junkies, like Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Bob Corker, vote with Trump over 90% of the time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2509 by Chiroptera, posted 09-29-2018 11:40 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2511 by Phat, posted 09-30-2018 9:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2512 of 4573 (840491)
09-30-2018 6:46 PM


Trump Lies Again
Not that it will surprise anyone, but Trump has lied again. He claimed that the FBI probe of Kavanaugh's statements to the judiciary committee would be unfettered when in reality the White House is specifying that it be narrowly focused. Only a handful of people will be interviewed, and while no list has been made public it seems unlikely that it will include Julie Swetnick. Kavanaugh's drinking history will not be investigated.
On the weekly Sunday morning programs Trump puppets Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Sanders denied reports that the investigation would be limited in scope, but Trump lap dog Senator Lindsey Graham said that Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Lisa Murkowski "wanted a limited review," despite no evidence or news reports of any of them saying any such thing.
Obviously the primary Republican interest is in getting their man on the Supreme Court and not on coming as close to the truth as possible.
Source: FBI's Kavanaugh investigation narrow in scope
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2513 by Chiroptera, posted 09-30-2018 7:26 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2514 by Phat, posted 10-02-2018 10:27 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 2517 of 4573 (840846)
10-04-2018 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2516 by marc9000
10-04-2018 11:06 AM


The Kavanaugh Nomination
Kavanaugh's past decisions and his statements and responses to questions before the Judiciary Committee indicate that he has an unlimited view of presidential power (i.e., he isn't a big believer in checks and balances), that he may not view Roe v. Wade as settled law, that he may have lied about his drinking in high school and college, that he may have sexually abused women, and that he lacks judicial temperament.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2516 by marc9000, posted 10-04-2018 11:06 AM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2518 by marc9000, posted 10-04-2018 8:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2520 of 4573 (840947)
10-05-2018 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2518 by marc9000
10-04-2018 8:03 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:
quote:
He said Congress should pass a law temporarily protecting presidents from such distractions in office.
Clinton, for example, could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots, Kavanaugh wrote in the 2009 Minnesota Law Review article.
https://www.seattletimes.com/...l-powers-could-be-flashpoint
Seems to me Democrats would agree with that, many Republicans do - I do.
I'm an independent, and I believe no one should be above the law.
His opinions on presidential power are largely non-partisan,...
Kavanaugh revealed himself to be completely partisan during his tirade against Democrats on September 27. Some excerpts (full text here):
quote:
Since my nomination in July, there has been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation.
...
The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at the hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment...This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a Democratic member of this committee and by staff.
...
This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.
Moving on:
and that he lacks judicial temperament.
That's a recent invention from the left,...
Actually that's what Judge Kavanaugh displayed in that self same tirade from September 27.
But you've answered my question, there don't seem to be any detailed specifics, just generalizations - from a political party that makes no secret that it will obstruct anyone Trump nominates, anyone. Forget the good of the country, forget the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for this charade, it's ONLY about obstruction. We'll see how these elections go, I'm 64, and I'm beginning to think that I won't have to worry about Democrat control of either the house or senate for the rest of my life. It's a good feeling.
You sound very partisan. I don't want us to elect those who care only for what is best for their party. I think we should elect those who care most about the best interests of the country, independent of party affiliation. I don't think we have many of that kind of person serving in state and federal office today.
AbE: In case there's any doubt that Kavanaugh's tirade raised serious questions about his objectivity and judicial temperament, based on that testimony the American Bar Association has decided to reopen its evaluation of Kavanaugh.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2518 by marc9000, posted 10-04-2018 8:03 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2521 by marc9000, posted 10-07-2018 3:24 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 2523 of 4573 (841135)
10-08-2018 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2521 by marc9000
10-07-2018 3:24 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
marc9000 writes:
In this day and age especially, a U.S. president is far more subject than anyone else to petty, personal attacks that can greatly affect his focus on his job. U.S. presidents have long been called "the most powerful man in the world", but they are obviously also the most hated man in the world. They deserve some protection from petty accusations.
Of course. In fact they deserve a lot of protection from petty accusations. But there's nothing petty about tax fraud, violating the Constitution's emoluments clause, colluding with the Russians, or defamation.
About that last charge, defamation, this is the Summer Zervos case where a judge ruled that:
quote:
No one is above the law. Nothing in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution even suggests that the president cannot be called to account before a state court for wrongful conduct that bears no relationship to any federal executive responsibility.
Moving on:
You seem to take pride in being an "independent" as if it's some sort of non-partisan badge of honor, but Bernie Sanders claims to be an independent, and he's about as closed minded as any extremely partisan Democrat or Republican.
You're confusing two different senses of the term independent. Bernie Sanders is only an independent in the sense that he is a member of neither party. He actually identifies himself as a democratic socialist, and he caucuses with the Democrats. I am an independent in the sense that I vote for who in my judgment is the best candidate *independent* of any party affiliation.
You've clearly shown your far left positions on gun control,...
I follow the evidence. The evidence shows that the presence of guns makes people less safe. That is the basis of my position. If has nothing to do with left or right.
...global warming,...
It's more accurate to call it climate change. I follow the evidence. The evidence shows that climate change is a reality and that the causes are man-made. In today's news: U.N. scientists issue dire warning on climate change
...a love of Obama (Message 2472)...
I think it would be accurate to say that I prefer Obama to Trump (or almost anyone to Trump), not that I have a love of Obama (I never voted for him), and certainly not based on anything I said in Message 2472. Since you bring it up, where I do mention Obama in that post is to call you out for a lie, to which you never responded. Maybe you can respond now:
marc9000 in Message 2470 writes:
Obama even broke with the tradition of past, mature presidents, and had a temper tantrum, 20 months out of office.
Here's a video of Obama's "temper tantrum". Please tell us where in the video this "temper tantrum" happens:
Moving on:
...and a hatred of Trump.
"Hatred" doesn't capture how I feel about Trump. For a long time in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's I either lived or had family I frequently visited in the New York Metropolitan area where Trump was often in the news. My negative impressions of Trump first formed in the early 1970's when he displayed overt racist bigotry in the management of his properties, in his racist scapegoating of blacks in the Central Park rape case, and later when he used bankruptcy (three separate times) to walk out on his Atlantic City casinos and hotels leaving the city holding the bag (I had family who lived just a short drive from Atlantic City). My dislike of Trump is based on first hand observation of who he is and what he's done.
Kavanaugh revealed himself to be completely partisan during his tirade against Democrats on September 27. Some excerpts
It isn't partisan to state facts.
Of course it isn't partisan to state facts. But Kavanaugh didn't state facts.
quote:
Since my nomination in July, there has been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation.
You don't agree that that's a fact?
Certainly the Democrats were working to find ways to obtain enough votes to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation. To characterize that as "a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation," as if they were willing to use underhanded means and make up accusations, is clearly partisan and completely inappropriate for any judicial appointee.
quote:
The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at the hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment...This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a Democratic member of this committee and by staff.
You don't agree that the allegation was held in secret?
Of course Dr. Ford's letter was kept secret - that was what Dr. Ford requested. Honoring Dr. Ford's request was what Justice Kavanaugh was calling an embarrassment. His statement was untrue, highly partisan, and inappropriate for an appointee to the Supreme Court.
As far as "embarrassment" goes, I haven't noticed David Muir of ABC World News Tonight making any mention of what foreign leaders, both friend and foe, have had to say about this. A cover up of the embarrassment?
I'm unable to make sense of most of this, and can't see the relevance of the remainder.
quote:
This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.
Here is a recent column that sums up what's going on today very concisely;
Outline.com
Justice Kavanaugh's partisan tirade was in essence an opinion piece. Citing another opinion piece titled Why the Left Is Consumed With Hate by conservative Shelby Steele that was published in the Wall Street Journal is not relevant nor a justification for Justice Kavanaugh's partisan outburst. Op-ed columnists are expected to be partisan, Supreme Court justices non-partisan. Justice Kavanaugh accused the left of unfairly stoking fears motivated by anger about the 2016 election and revenge for the Clintons. That's strongly partisan.
Face it. The Republicans just put a rightist partisan on the Supreme Court bench whose decisions will be colored more by partisan considerations than by the merits.
And it's hard for people to see the news media proudly showing, over and over, two loudmouth women screaming at Jeff Flake as he was getting off an elevator, as if this is the perception a huge majority of the people.
The Republicans in the Senate (except for Lisa Murkowski from Alaska) and Democrat Joe Manchin are out of step with the American people, a majority of whom believe the women. In Justice Kavanaugh's case, "A more recent poll taken after the conclusion of last Thursday’s hearings found that 60% of those polled found Ford’s testimony believable, compared to only 35% of whom found Kavanaugh’s testimony believable." (from Polls Show Most Americans ‘Believe The Women’)
It's hard to see Kavanaugh treated as guilty until proven innocent. Now that he's been proven innocent by the FBI, he's still treated guilty by mobs that the news media proudly champions.
You're confused again. The issue was not to find Justice Kavanaugh guilty or innocent but to determine his suitability for the Supreme Court. It was a job interview. The Senate Judiciary committee's interview found him unworthy, but 50 Senators ignored that and voted to confirm.
Actually that's what Judge Kavanaugh displayed in that self same tirade from September 27.
It's not fun to be falsely accused.
It's also not fun to have your past catch up with you. There were very similar accusations from three different women who despite no coordination told the same stories of drunken parties, a drunken Brett Kavanaugh, and sexual exploitation of women who in many cases were still girls. The White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee insured that only one of the women testified, and that the FBI only interviewed about 20% of the potential witnesses, including witnesses who actively contacted the FBI expressing a wish to provide information but were ignored.
I don't think today's left has the market cornered on calmness and civility.
But we're not talking about whether the left or the right is more calm and civil. We're talking about the suitability of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court and whether he exhibited judicial temperament in his testimony before the committee. He did not.
You sound very partisan.
Yes I am. You're not?
I'm partisan in the sense that I'm strongly in favor of people being able to live their lives in freedom without fear of discrimination, partisan justice, economic injustice, gender inequality, violent death, and political machinations.
I'd be less partisan if we had a few Democrats like we used to have, like "Scoop" Jackson, or Wendell Ford. These were Democrats who actually spent some of their waking moments thinking about something besides ~growing the size and scope of government~.
So you don't like Joe Manchin, Claire McCaskill or Heidi Heitkamp?
The two most liberal Supreme court justices we have today, Ruth Ginsberg (confirmed by a 96 - 3 vote) and Sonia Sotomayor (confirmed 68 - 31) saw a lot less partisanship than Kavanaugh just saw, didn't they?
I'm against Supreme Court justices speaking up on the issues of the day. I think Ginsberg's comments on Donald Trump, Colin Kaepernick and the #MeToo movement were inappropriate and ill advised.
Kavanaugh is less partisan than either of them, everybody knows that.
Neither Ginsberg nor Sotomayor has issued any politically partisan accusations. Kavanaugh will be hard put to diminish the perception that he is beholden to a particular political camp.
I think we should elect those who care most about the best interests of the country, independent of party affiliation. I don't think we have many of that kind of person serving in state and federal office today.
Not in the Democrat party that's for sure.
Yes, you are clearly a Republican partisan. This is sort of tongue in cheek, but desiring public office should be disqualifying. Public servants should have to be carried kicking and screaming into office.
It would be nice if the news media would report on just how much of the taxpayers money, and their legislators time and effort, was spent on this confirmation fiasco.
Let's just say for the sake of argument that too much money was spent on the confirmation process. Is the amount of money spent what's truly important? Or is what's most important insuring that we have the greatest judicial minds who are politically independent serving on our courts?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2521 by marc9000, posted 10-07-2018 3:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2524 of 4573 (841137)
10-08-2018 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2522 by marc9000
10-07-2018 8:33 PM


I think you need a more neutral source than an opinion piece from NewsBusters which describes itself as "Exposing and combating liberal media bias." There's not much point to a discussion where each side merely posts excerpts from biased opinion pieces.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2522 by marc9000, posted 10-07-2018 8:33 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2525 of 4573 (841143)
10-08-2018 1:08 PM


Trump Lies Again
We know that Trump will never tell the truth when a lie will do, so he has lied numerous times that he doesn't drink. This has been shown false any number of times, but here is yet another example from a recent interview aboard Air Force One. Note the red arrow pointing at the half-empty liquor glass hiding behind the phone:
AbE: I seem to be the only person who noticed this during the interview. I'm unable to find any news item referencing it.
Here's a link to an article that contains a number of pictures of Trump drinking: How often does Donald Trump drink alcohol? - Quora. The article includes a number of reader comments. Some mention the death of his brother Fred due to alcohol-related issues, and that he promised Fred on his deathbed that he wouldn't drink. Of course, he promised Melania he'd be faithful, and we know how that worked out.
A couple comments note, like me, that Trump lies about everything and go on to express a bit of astonishment that his statement that he doesn't drink is so blithely believed by so many.
Hey, wait a minute, how much of the story about Fred Trump Jr.'s alcoholism comes from Donald Trump? I bet a good bit of it. Here's a NYT story about Fred Trump Jr., and there seems no objective documentation of Fred Trump's alcoholism: For Donald Trump, Lessons From a Brother’s Suffering. All it says was that he died due to complications of alcoholism. What does that mean? The well-known result of alcoholism is cirrhosis of the liver, but I can find no on-line reference to Fred Jr. having liver problems. How did he really die?
Here's the part of the story that rings true. The Trump family paid the medical bills for Fred Jr.'s son's medical bills (cerebral palsy), but Fred Sr. left Fred Jr.'s family out of his will. They sued citing undue influence over Fred Sr. by the other siblings, and so Donald Trump cut off the payments for Fred Jr.'s son's medical bills because, as he said, "I was angry because they sued." Sounds just like him.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2533 of 4573 (841307)
10-11-2018 9:33 AM


Complaints Against Kavanaugh
According to an article in Forbes, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts has received twelve ethics complaints about Justice Kavanaugh stemming from his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 27th, 2018. That's the testimony Kavanaugh gave after Dr. Ford testified where he was first intemperate, injudicious, rude and angry, then lied about his high school and college drinking, and his treatment of women, some of whom were girls at the time. There is no shame in drinking to excess as an intemperate youth, and one might even be forgiven for stepping beyond the bounds in treatment of women during those young years, but it is grossly disqualifying for a judge to lie about it all as an adult.
Justice Roberts referred the allegations to the chief circuit judge of Denver's Tenth Circuit, Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, whose options are to handle the complaints himself, dismiss them, or appoint a special committee to investigate them.
According to the article Supreme Court justices are not subject to any misconduct rules associated with such allegations, so many might wonder if there is any point. There are two, but one of them is small. If any of the complaints are found true then there will always be an asterisk next to Justice Kavanaugh's name. In the minds of many an asterisk is already there, identical to the one next to Clarence Thomas's name. The Supreme Court nomination, approval and appointment progress is so broken that in the span of a mere 27 years Republicans have managed to seat two sexual abusers, one of them also incompetent (at the Supreme Court level), the other also highly partisan. Judge Tymkovich's decisions will determine whether Justice Kavanaugh receives a second asterisk.
The second reason this investigation matters is that if the Democrats take over the House in November then a committee will certainly investigate the Justice Kavanaugh appointment, and the outcome of Judge Tymkovich's investigations will serve as evidence for the committee. Impeachment is a possibility, though a meaningless one since the Republicans are likely to retain the Senate where the trial would be held.
Both Thomas and Kavanaugh were nominated by Republican presidents, who are proving to be really bad at appointing Supreme Court justices. They select judges with a dark vision of America where women receive coat hanger abortions in back alleys, workers are at the mercy of their employers, the poor and needy are told to assist themselves, retiree benefits are reduced, the rich are taxed less than anyone else with the difference made up on the backs of the people, those who can't afford insurance just don't receive adequate healthcare, and our message to the desperate beyond our shores is "go home and die."
It would be a refreshing development if we could see some objectivity from the Republican partisans here. I myself am an independent. It doesn't matter to me which party you are, you must all follow the same rules. I immediately called for Senator Al Franken's resignation when his sexual abuse allegations came to light. I condemned Justice Ginsberg publicly commenting on issues of the day. But to Republican partisans all conservatives are angels and all liberals are demons, and they don't even see that that isn't possible and that they are operating under an enormous weight of bias.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2534 of 4573 (841313)
10-11-2018 10:18 AM


George Will Gets It Right Almost Up to the Very End
Long-time conservative George Will's op-ed piece in today's Washington Post cites a brilliantly written exposition on how ideas are validated (Trump’s presidency is one giant act of trolling). George almost sounds like a scientist:
quote:
This apercu comes from the Brookings Institution’s Jonathan Rauch. His essay, titled The Constitution of Knowledge, in National Affairs quarterly is his response to Trump’s guiding principle, as stated by Stephen K. Bannon, whose body but not whose mentality has left the White House. Bannon says: The way to deal with [the media] is to flood the zone with shit. Rauch says: Trump’s presidential lying, which began concerning the size of his inauguration crowd, reflects a strategy, not merely a character flaw or pathology. And the way to combat Trump’s epistemic attack on Americans’ collective ability to distinguish truth from falsehood is by attending to the various social mechanisms that, taken together, are the method of validating propositions.
Modernity began when humanity removed reality-making from the authoritarian control of priests and princes and outsourced it to no one in particular. It was given over to a decentralized, globe-spanning community of critical testers who hunt for each other’s errors. This is why today’s foremost enemy of modernity is populism, which cannot abide the idea that majorities are not self-validating, and neither are intense minorities (e.g., the Elvis lives cohort). Validation comes from the critical testers who are the bane of populists’ existence because the testers are, by dint of training and effort, superior to the crowd, no matter how many are in it.
Think, says Rauch, of the constitution of knowledge as a funnel: At the wide end, millions of people float millions of hypotheses every day. Only an infinitesimal fraction of new ideas will be proven true. To find them, we run the hypotheses through a massive, socially distributed error-finding process. Only a tiny few make it to the narrow end of the funnel. The authors of those that do receive the prestige of recognition and the enmity of populists, who worship the many in order to disparage the few. Disparagement is the default position of all levelers.
That's a long quote but well worth reading.
Will, unfortunately, drifts off message and into partisan error at the end, casting disparagement at both Trump and his opposition as if they were both doing the same thing:
quote:
Ominously, in the most important of these, the colleges and universities, serious scholars are not the dominant voices. Trump, bellowing fake news and sham this and rigged that, is on all fours with his leftist, often academic and equally fact-free despisers who, hollering racist and fascist, are his collaborators in the attack on the constitution of knowledge. No wonder, Rauch writes, much of the public has formed the impression that academia is not trustworthy. Imposing opinions and promoting political agendas, many academics have descended to trolling, forfeiting their ability to contest he whom they emulate.
The left is full of "equally fact-free despisers"? Where, George, where? I notice you provide a link for your condemnation of Trump, but for your condemnations of the left you've provided nothing in support, nada. Despite your dislike of Trump, you can't complete an opinion piece without dubious and baseless attacks on the left. Attack the left all you like, George, but without that idea distilling funnel Rauch talks about you're just another troll for the Trump you dislike so much.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2551 of 4573 (841678)
10-18-2018 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2550 by Taq
10-18-2018 1:45 PM


Re: The Kavanaugh Nomination
I think Marc is referring to things like this from Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut that found a right to privacy in the Constitution that is never explicitly mentioned:
quote:
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Ironically, today it is the right that puts the greatest stress on a right to privacy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2550 by Taq, posted 10-18-2018 1:45 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2552 by Chiroptera, posted 10-18-2018 7:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2558 of 4573 (841798)
10-22-2018 8:17 AM


Who is the Real Michael Avenatti?
Today's Daily Beast ran this article about Michael Avenatti's complicated legal and financial entanglements with his ex-wife, his ex-law firm, his ex-partners, his ex-racing team, and the IRS: Michael Avenatti Lived the High Life While Owing Millions to IRS. I just sent this email to Mr. Avenatti:
quote:
Dear Mr. Avenatti,
I’m contacting you at your law firm because this is the only email address I could find, and I do not use Twitter or Facebook. I believe they have too much potential to diminish, demean and cheapen our political discourse.
I shook your hand at the Hillsborough County Democratic Picnic and called you Mr. Future President. An LA Times reporter overheard me and asked why, and I said it was because you spoke truth to lies. But after reading today’s Daily Beast article it seems possible that you only speak truth to lies when it is convenient, when it is about someone else’s lies, someone else’s lack of transparency.
I have no interest in trading one combative, secretive liar for another. You *have* been right about Trump and Michael Cohen, but it seems possible that you have been wrong, or at least behaved very badly with self-interest your primary motivation, about many other things. If you run in 2020 it had better be after you’ve cleaned this up with full transparency by revealing all the truth, both good and bad, for all the world to see. Then let us judge if you should be our president. I like the way you combat Trump, but not all this other stuff. Treat your ex-wife, your creditors, the courts, the people you believe have wronged you, with dignity and respect and fairness and openness, and do not stiff people. Only by this can you earn my vote.
It will be hard. Trump has kept much about his life and businesses from becoming public through aggressive use of NDAs and threats of legal action. For anyone eschewing such approaches it won’t be so easy maintaining a positive public image. I sincerely wish you good luck, because we do need you.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2559 of 4573 (842276)
10-28-2018 6:11 PM


Trump Lies Again
Trump decided to go ahead with a planned campaign rally in Illinois yesterday, the same day as the synagogue massacre in the Squirrel Hill district of Pittsburgh, justifying it by falsely claiming that the New York Stock Exchange opened the day after 9/11. The reality is that the NYSE did not reopen until 9/17, six days later. It was the longest closure of the NYSE since the Great Depression. (Source)
Rhetorical question: How many messages in this thread have been titled Trump Lies Again?
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2560 of 4573 (842294)
10-29-2018 7:31 AM


A Letter to Trump from Jewish Leaders in Pittsburgh
Jewish leaders in Pittsburgh are asking Jews and allies across the nation to sign an online letter to President Trump demanding that he commit himself to these demands else he is not welcome in Pittsburgh:
  • Fully denounce white nationalism,
  • Stop targeting and endangering all minorities,
  • Cease your assault on immigrants and refugees, and
  • Commit yourself to compassionate, democratic policies that recognize the dignity of all of us.
The letter can be found here: Letter to President Trump from Pittsburgh Jewish Leaders
The demands and signing link are here: Add your name to the list
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2562 of 4573 (842353)
10-30-2018 9:09 AM


Trump Vows to End Birthright Citizenship
Trump is vowing to end the right to US citizenship for those born in the US to noncitizens.
Trump:
quote:
We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.
...
It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t.
...
You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.
The 14th Amendment:
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
He knows he can't do it. He's just stirring up his base again. What does it say about a base that is so easily and transparently stirred and manipulated, and that finds messages of hate so energizing and enthralling? After Trump is gone they'll still be here.
AbE: Trump apparently lied again when he said the US was the only such nation. NumbersUSA says there are 33 such nations: Nations Granting Birthright Citizenship. The US and Canada are the only developed countries on the list.
Source: Trump eyeing executive order to end citizenship for children born in U.S. to noncitizens
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2563 by Diomedes, posted 10-30-2018 9:34 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2564 of 4573 (842356)
10-30-2018 9:34 AM


Sully Writes an Editorial
From today's Washington Post by Chesley B. 'Sully' Sullenberger III: We saved 155 lives on the Hudson. Now let’s vote for leaders who’ll protect us all.. Excerpts:
quote:
I am often told how calm I sounded speaking to passengers, crew and air traffic control during the emergency. In every situation, but especially challenging ones, a leader sets the tone and must create an environment in which all can do their best. You get what you project. Whether it is calm and confidence or fear, anger and hatred people will respond in kind. Courage can be contagious.
Today, tragically, too many people in power are projecting the worst. Many are cowardly, complicit enablers, acting against the interests of the United States, our allies and democracy; encouraging extremists at home and emboldening our adversaries abroad; and threatening the livability of our planet. Many do not respect the offices they hold; they lack or disregard a basic knowledge of history, science and leadership; and they act impulsively, worsening a toxic political environment.
...
For the first 85 percent of my adult life, I was a registered Republican. But I have always voted as an American. And this critical Election Day, I will do so by voting for leaders committed to rebuilding our common values and not pandering to our basest impulses.
...
We cannot wait for someone to save us. We must do it ourselves. This Election Day is a crucial opportunity to again demonstrate the best in each of us by doing our duty and voting for leaders who are committed to the values that will unite and protect us. Years from now, when our grandchildren learn about this critical time in our nation’s history, they may ask if we got involved, if we made our voices heard. I know what my answer will be. I hope yours will be yes.
Germany was a civilized country before a propagandist instigator brought out the basest instincts in an entire people and brought upon the world the greatest conflagration it had ever seen. The people we see at Trump Rallies chanting "Lock her up" and "Animals" and "Build a wall — kill them all" must be good people at heart. They need a leader who will bring out the better angels of their nature.
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024