|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
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) "Unlimited view of presidential power" is too harsh of a description - many of his past writings and experiences happened while Clinton and Obama were in office. What he favors are limits to distractions which would keep a president from effectively doing his job.
quote: https://www.seattletimes.com/...l-powers-could-be-flashpoint Seems to me Democrats would agree with that, many Republicans do - I do. Also from that article;
quote: And;
quote: His opinions on presidential power are largely non-partisan, but today's news media is largely succeeding in covering that up. They're trying to make him all about protecting Trump in the immediate future, and that's far from the truth.
that he may not view Roe v. Wade as settled law, Yes, that's a never ending political division.
that he may have lied about his drinking in high school and college, that he may have sexually abused women, A lot of independent swing voters in the country must be asking themselves; "The party of Bill Clinton in the 90's, the party of Moveon.org etc, is concerned about 36 year old school parties from school children? This is going to affect his rulings? I actually kind of hope he's voted down. I think the Democrats are going to get a trouncing in the upcoming elections anyway, but his being viciously destroyed like this could make it even worse for them.
and that he lacks judicial temperament. That's a recent invention from the left, as if judicial decisions are going to invoke the same emotion from him as the grilling and personal attacks he's been fielding lately. As you might remember from back in 1991, Clarence Thomas got pretty emotional at the racism displayed against him by Democrats at that time, and hasn't shown similar emotion since in his duties on the Supreme court. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
I'm an independent, and I believe no one should be above the law. 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. 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've clearly shown your far left positions on gun control, global warming, a love of Obama (Message 2472) and a hatred of Trump.
Kavanaugh revealed himself to be completely partisan during his tirade against Democrats on September 27. Some excerpts It isn't partisan to state facts.
quote: You don't agree that that's a fact?
quote: You don't agree that the allegation was held in secret? 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?
quote: Here is a recent column that sums up what's going on today very concisely; https://outline.com/TXW6L8
quote: and;
quote: 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. 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.
Actually that's what Judge Kavanaugh displayed in that self same tirade from September 27. It's not fun to be falsely accused. I don't think today's left has the market cornered on calmness and civility.
You sound very partisan. Yes I am. You're not? 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~. 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? Kavanaugh is less partisan than either of them, everybody knows that.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Vice News D.C. Chief Admits There Were ‘Paid’ Anti-Kavanaugh Protesters | Newsbusters
quote: and;
quote: Then, in backpedaling, she said this;
quote: Maybe not, but it's about as close as you can get. And this is provable, who knows what goes on that's kept secret? Then we have this, from the same article;
quote: Could both sides play that game? I suspect Kavanaugh, maybe even Trump, behind the scenes of course, could possibly suggest to Politico and some in the rabid news media that maybe we should just drop it all and move on, unless the news media wants some action that they might not be able to handle too well. This article's author, to Kavanaugh;
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: You don't agree that the allegation was held in secret? 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 generally find your references to American news anchors I've never heard of a bit baffling, but assume that perhaps they make sense to Americans. This one, though, is particularly cryptic. It kind of looks like you're suggesting that foreign leaders are talking about what a shambles the nomination process was; and that this is not being covered by US media for ideological reasons. Foreign leaders aren't talking about the Kavanaugh nomination. Maybe the subject comes up with friends and family, but it's not like they're making public pronouncements on it. That would be pretty inappropriate, diplomatically. I should clarify, Percy was mystified about that comment also;
Percy writes: I'm unable to make sense of most of this, and can't see the relevance of the remainder. The U.S. News media caters to it's base (Percy as an example) and to those who have "never heard of" them and what they do (you as an example). They are very skilled at appearing objective and unbiased to anyone who doesn't have their eyes fully opened, who doesn't get their news from many sources and averages it all together, as I do. I don't have time tonight to reference all the following exact quotes, so I'll just paraphrase this from memory. A few weeks ago, Trump was speaking to a group of foreign leaders, I'm not sure if it was the U.N. or who it was. He was doing some of his Trump-style bragging, (a little annoying to me, but Trump is Trump). The camera was on him, it wasn't possible to see the expressions, or clearly hear, what these leaders reactions were. But Trump paused, and jokingly said "that's not the reaction I expected", or something similar, and a little ripple of laughter sounded throughout the room. Rational people like myself knew that they were amused by his off-the-cuff clowning around, knowing that he wasn't just robotically reading something, and that they were laughing WITH him, not AT him. David Muir of ABC World News Tonight practically had an orgasm, for not one, but at least two and possibly more evening news broadcasts, he played a recording of that, and jubilantly declared "FOREIGN LEADERS ARE LAUGHING AT TRUMP!!!!! FOREIGN LEADERS ARE LAUGHING AT TRUMP!!!!! Now, a few weeks later, we have a 53 year old dignified, well qualified man nominated for a very high position, that, with only a few exceptions, has in the past gone through an orderly, respected process to be confirmed to that position. But this time, the opposing political party dug up 36 year old dirt, unproven allegations, from when he was a school child, and this actually saw the light of day, including weeks of wasted time and money, from the U.S., a major player in world affairs, a country over $20 trillion in debt. with troops stationed around the world. And sets everything aside to squabble like school children over the actions of school children. To repeat what you said;
Foreign leaders aren't talking about the Kavanaugh nomination. Maybe the subject comes up with friends and family, but it's not like they're making public pronouncements on it. That would be pretty inappropriate, diplomatically. I'd bet they'd make public pronouncements on it if someone would ask them! If the situation were reversed, Muir would be over there himself with his microphone. If not asking foreign leaders, he'd be asking their citizens. I don't think countries hostile to the U.S. are concerned about diplomacy. During this whole fiasco, it was kept very quiet, or never mentioned at all in the mainstream media, just what Christine Blasey Ford's political affiliation is. Since she's a college professor, it's probably pretty obvious, but yes, not only is she a registered Democrat, she has marched against Trump in the past, and made contributions to Bernie Sanders. So many casual observers of politics in the U.S. don't know this, and never will know it, because it's not being reported to them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: Not in the Democrat party that's for sure. See, that's why I find it so hard to talk with conservatives. They know this is an insulting way to refer to my party, but they do it just to 'own the libs'. Why on earth should I try to have a meaningful conversation with someone like you? I read your link, I honestly had no idea that Democrats were offended when they were referred to as the "Democrat" party rather than the "Democratic" party. I only do it since it's a more focused way to refer to them, as they get less and less "Democratic" in their ever increasing advocation of ~government~, not people, making their decisions for them.
We are the Democratic Party, and I'd appreciate just a little acknowledgement of that fact. I hope you'll work on trying to keep it that way, rather than moving it to the socialist, or communist party. Would you favor your Democratic party making a list of new government mandates to combat global warming, (you know, the disaster we'll all face if the globe warms 1 degree over the next 10 years), and then putting that to a Democratic vote? Or would you rather the government / scientific community makes that decision for us?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: Would you favor your Democratic party making a list of new government mandates to combat global warming, (you know, the disaster we'll all face if the globe warms 1 degree over the next 10 years), and then putting that to a Democratic vote? I'm not sure what your point is with this question, but political parties shouldn't be in the business of proposing national Propositions to be voted on during general elections. Are you talking about a system like we have here in California? Just to let you know, generally I am not a fan of our ability to vote on anything that gets enough signatures to be put on our ballot. I usually vote 'no' on all of them. My point is that it would be "democratic" to take 'issue' votes a lot more than we do. The U.S. is a democratic republic, not a strict democracy, so we allow elected leaders to make many political decisions for us. It's supposed to be the best of both worlds - the people decide, without a tyranny of the majority. I personally don't think we get enough issues votes, considering what the 10th amendment says.
Also, I don't believe your excuse for the use of 'Democrat Party', unless you've lived in a cave since Limbaugh went on the air. But if you promise to use the correct term going forward, then I'll chalk it up to 'lesson learned'. From your link above;
quote: I just can't understand this sensitivity to such minor term usage. One term is an adjective, and the other is a noun. If the noun is getting more and more distanced from the adjective, it only makes sense to use them each where they best belong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
You need to watch it again. Trump made some outrageous claim, like "Our administration has done more than any previous administration" and the foreign leaders immediately started laughing. Trump wasn't clowning around, he was being serious. They laughed at him. After they laughed at him he then said "That's not the response I was expecting". Watch it. You might be right, but it's debatable. Some people do laugh at something, when they're nervous about it, or uninformed about it. If foreign leaders are only getting their information from our mainstream media, they're largely uninformed of course. Unemployment is at an all time low, GDP is at an all time high, etc. but it's all seldom reported. Every time a president has been elected in my lifetime, members and supporters of the opposite party have been angry about it, but after the first year or two, they tend to accept it and the anger does subside somewhat. Not with Trump, as angry as they were when he was elected, the anger has increased. The reason is obvious, the good economy, and other things he campaigned on that he is actually doing.
marc9000 writes: Now, a few weeks later, we have a 53 year old dignified, well qualified man nominated for a very high position, that, with only a few exceptions, has in the past gone through an orderly, respected process to be confirmed to that position. But this time, the opposing political party dug up 36 year old dirt, unproven allegations, from when he was a school child, and this actually saw the light of day, including weeks of wasted time and money, from the U.S., a major player in world affairs, a country over $20 trillion in debt. with troops stationed around the world. And sets everything aside to squabble like school children over the actions of school children. To repeat what you said; Two words for you. Merrick Garland. It's been fairly customary in the past, for a new Supreme Court Justice to have views similar to the Justice he or she is replacing. Garland's views were very different from those of Scalia. As examples, Obama appointees Sotomayor and Kagan replaced Justices Souter and Stevens, who had similar judicial philosophies. The vote for Sotomayor was 68 - 31, so several Republicans voted for her. The vote for Kagan was 63 - 37, same thing. So many Republican senators actually respect how the process works, they know that judicial picks are the job of the president, they're only job is to make sure they're qualified. Obama was in the last year of his second term. If McConnell had the ability to stall the vote to keep the Court from becoming one of a "personal opinion" majority instead of a " constitutional" majority, then it was good that he did it. Ginsberg is 85, Breyer is 80. Suppose one of them dies in the spring of 2024. What chance do you think Trump would have in the last year of his second term getting a conservative judge to replace them, if he doesn't have a Senate majority in 2024? Chances are, one or both of them will die before then. It will be interesting to see if Trump nominates someone somewhat more moderate than Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, or if he goes for another Constitutionalist. Won't matter to Democrat senators, they'll waste as much of the nations time and money to block it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
TWO more words for you: Mitch McConnell. Shortly before the 2016 election when it still looked like Clinton would win, he promised publically that if she won then for her entire term he guaranteed that none of her Supreme Court appointees would ever be confirmed, but rather the Republican Senate would block each and every one of them. Now that, plus what they did to Merrick Garland, is obstruction. Because McConnell knows that Democrats long ago quit nominating Justices that actually interpret the Constitution, they prefer those who consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party. (whoops, I mean today's Democratic party.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
That's complete BS. This has never, ever been a tradition. The tradition is that the President appoints judges that have similar views to the President. Never, ever? How about the 'lineage' (for lack of a better term) leading up to today's Steven Breyer? Breyer replaced Harry Blackmun;
quote: Blackmun replaced Abe Fortas, (nominated by Johnson), who replaced Arthur Goldberg (nominated by John F. Kennedy) A list of 4 left leaning judges. Nixon was being co-operative, I'm sure it's happened many other times in the country's history. Of course, there are always exceptions. By Democrats of course. Clinton nominated Ruth Ginsburg, who replaced Byron White. He was nominated by John F. Kennedy, but was much more conservative than Ginsburg.
quote: So hopefully, today's Republicans won't try to be co-operative like Nixon was, expecting today's Democrats to return the favor. Any co-operation today's Republicans offer will just be used by Democrats to stab them in the back with. That's the reason Lindsay Graham was so fired up at the Kavanaugh hearing. (he voted FOR Sotomayor) I don't look for him to vote for a liberal justice again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: Because McConnell knows that Democrats long ago quit nominating Justices that actually interpret the Constitution, they prefer those who consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party. (whoops, I mean today's Democratic party.) Care to give an example? How about 4, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: It's been fairly customary in the past, for a new Supreme Court Justice to have views similar to the Justice he or she is replacing. Seriously? marc9000 says this on a thread discussing Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy? Seriously? Chiroptera sees differences in Kennedy's Supreme Court decisions versus Kavanaugh's Supreme Court decisions when Kavanaugh hasn't even been there long enough to make a Supreme Court decision yet? And they're both WHITE too!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
What differences have you seen between Merrick Garland's Supreme Court decisions and Antonin Scalia's decisions? Remember, you are the one who said it was inappropriate to replace Scalia with Garland, so let's see those Garland SCOTUS decisions. Garland has never been on the Supreme Court, so we can't reference any SCOTUS decisions of his. But we can reference his decisions and philosophies in other positions he's held. How liberal is Merrick Garland? - POLITICO Big on environmental regulations, big on pleasing big labor, and big on gun control. Nothing like Scalia. Though moderate enough to probably mislead a lot of conservatives into thinking he'd rule from the center. That's what Ginsburg managed to pull off, since she was confirmed 96 to 3. Now if you're going to accuse me of having a double standard, since I'm judging Garland without him having a SCOTUS record, and crying foul when Chiroptera judges Kavanaugh without HIM having a SCOTUS record, what I see is Garland's record from his lower positions making it very clear that he has no respect for the second amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights. What part of the Bill of Rights, (or any other part of the Constitution) do you and Chiroptera clearly see that Kavanaugh will disrespect?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I was asking for decisions based on "consider the Constitution to have very broad principles and concepts, subject to the whims of today's Democrat party". Can you name any such decisions? Percy writes: 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: There are tons of examples. It's a rabbit trail I don't care to go down in this "Trump" thread. Not going to take this "off topic" bait. (you're welcome )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
Even after this announcement some in the media still expressed doubt about whether information constitutes a "thing of value." I cannot for the life of me figure out where their doubt is coming from. My guess is that their doubt comes from a fear that not only Hillary, but the entire Democratic National Committee could be called into question for doing the exact same thing that is the latest Trump attack. Hillary Clinton, like Donald Trump, endorsed idea of political dirt from overseas - Washington Times https://www.washingtonpost.com/...68-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
Trump and many people on his campaign had dealings with Russia. The Clinton campaign wanted to know if there was anything about these dealings that would be helpful to the campaign, and so they decided to investigate. They contracted out this opposition research, which all presidential candidates do. The research required seeking evidence and information from those who would know about it, which would mostly be Russians. This paragraph seems to imply that all of Hillary's foreign dealings were a reaction to Trump's peoples dealings with Russia. She was accepting foreign donations back during the Obama administration when Democrats were doing little more than laughing at the color of Trump's hair. From my above (Washington Post) link;
quote: Trump, on the other hand and for just a couple examples, sent top campaign officials to a meeting in Trump Tower with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton, and Manafort met with a Russian who had Russian intelligence connections where he shared internal Trump polling data so that Russian intelligence agencies could better target their social media election-influencing efforts. Yes yes, that's been trumpeted in the news for a long time, and hasn't died down too much even though Mueller couldn't do anything with it. But the cause for latest Democrat hysteria is Trump's response to Stephanopoulos's gotcha question, which Trump couldn't possibly answer without setting Democrats / mainstream media into a frenzy. He said "he'd listen", and we see what's happening. If he'd said; "oh no, I wouldn't listen", then we'd have heard "LIAR LIAR LIAR, WHAT WERE YOU DOING WHEN YOU SENT YOUR SON TO MEET WITH THE RUSSIANS?" Maybe he could have just said "no comment", do you think the media would have had something to say about that? ABC claims that Stephanopoulos spent 30 hours with Trump - at first glance, one wonders why Trump would allow this much of his time to be wasted, playing defense with a bunch of loaded questions from a former member of Bill Clinton's cabinet, a biased Democrat who now masquerades as a "journalist". Trump probably figures, correctly, that this interview will help him in the long run. Many voters will see ABC's attempts to edit and distort it to try to discredit him. It probably won't completely backfire on them, but it won't help them much either. Also, it shows a difference between him and past presidents - would a past president allow a journalist who is clearly biased against them to spend 30 hours with them, firing one question after another at them? Would Obama have allowed a Fox News journalist, like Brett Bair, or Britt Hume, 30 hours to question him? Actually, Bair and Hume aren't in the same league as Stephanopoulos, a better equivalent would be a former member of the Reagan administration who is now a political commentator, one Mark Levin. I wonder how Obama would have held up after 30 hours, or 30 minutes of questioning from him?
Please explain how these are "the exact same thing." You're right, they probably aren't much the same, what Hillary did was probably far worse. But as is rightly pointed out by Democrats, Hillary isn't president and has no power. Not much of anything is going to come of any of this, other than what the voters are seeing. I think a significant number of voters who voted in this current Democrat house were expecting them to address a few things other than a hatred of Trump, a movement to get him out of office before his first term is up. I think a few of them had things like healthcare costs, some bi-partisan action on the southern border, etc. on their minds. They're not seeing much of that, are they?
An absence of evidence was not why Mueller declined to raise any indictments for conspiracy. There was plenty of evidence. He charged no indictments only because he felt the bar for conviction was higher than the available evidence could justify. I wasn't aware that this "bar" varied all around in its height - who is in charge of moving this bar around? I suspect that this bar is at the same height all the time, and this available evidence was too flimsy to hold up in proper legal scrutiny.
He also said that obstruction efforts played a role in keeping the evidence below a conviction-worthy level. But he couldn't prove them. So case closed. But Democrats keep crying. And voters are watching.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024