So nothing. This is the third item I have asked you to provide evidence for your claims. So far nothing. Yes you are a troll.
Or just a gullible puppet of the alt-right propaganda machine that cares nothing for truth, layers falsehoods on falsehoods, and whose main goal is fascism over democracy. Humpty Dumbty is their willing tool, McConnell as well. They are owned.
Dumbty wants to go to the Russian Parade ... if he does let's hope he stays ...
The Left is an Ideology, leftists like all people can be sterotyped, they may believe all sorts of degrees and variations on the ideology, but the ideology is what it is and I'm clear about what it is.
Says the most ideologically driven blinded by her ideology poster on the forum.
"The Left" is not an ideology, Faith. People are not an ideology.
1 : the principles and views of the left also : the movement embodying these principles 2 : advocacy of or adherence to the doctrines of the left
People on the left embrace leftist ideologies.
quote:Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy.[1][2][3][4] It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.[1]
and just for completeness
quote:Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
... they may believe all sorts of degrees and variations on the ideology, but the ideology is what it is and I'm clear about what it is.
Actually you make it out to be much more than it really is. You think science in general, and evolution in particular, is a leftist plot to distract people from the "real truth" of your ideology. You think anyone slightly to the left of your extreme right wing ideology is leftist, and yes, you are very clear about that.
You think objective empirical facts are wrong when they contradict your ideology.
You rant at people for having a different opinion, especially when they back it up with facts that you can't accept.
Yes the Left IS an ideology. I doln't call Liberalism an ideology although it may incorporate the ideology of the Left. I use the word "Left" specifically because I want to emphasize that it is an ideology, ...
So once again we see you trying to redefine words to mean something different than what they mean to everyone else, while ignoring the meaning of words that can be used to say what you mean.
I was trying to say that people may subscribe to different degrees of the ideology though. The subject was stereotyping and I was saying that people can be stereotyped although they don't hold to the whole ideology.
Or in other words you broadbrush everything and everyone even slightly to the left of your extreme personal ideology by calling them all one group, and then equate everyone in that group with the worst extreme example you can think of.
I was trying to say that people may subscribe to different degrees of the ideology though. The subject was stereotyping and I was saying that people can be stereotyped although they don't hold to the whole ideology.
Except that you are implying that they are all just as bad by your stereotyping.
Do you ever wonder why people think you are hateful?
Hi Marc, sorry to add to the answer pile, but I'm curious:
This is all true, but us Constitutionalists believe it's not a reason for the government to increase its involvement in domestic economics.
Like Phat/Thugpreacha I had to look up Constitutionalist/m. I get a little different take:
quote:Constitutionalism is "a compound of ideas, attitudes, and patterns of behavior elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law".[1]
Political organizations are constitutional to the extent that they "contain institutionalized mechanisms of power control for the protection of the interests and liberties of the citizenry, including those that may be in the minority".[2] As described by political scientist and constitutional scholar David Fellman:
Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply embedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials ... Throughout the literature dealing with modern public law and the foundations of statecraft the central element of the concept of constitutionalism is that in political society government officials are not free to do anything they please in any manner they choose; they are bound to observe both the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the supreme, constitutional law of the community. It may therefore be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law.[3]
Definition
Constitutionalism has prescriptive and descriptive uses. Law professor Gerhard Casper captured this aspect of the term in noting, "Constitutionalism has both descriptive and prescriptive connotations. Used descriptively, it refers chiefly to the historical struggle for constitutional recognition of the people's right to 'consent' and certain other rights, freedoms, and privileges. Used prescriptively, its meaning incorporates those features of government seen as the essential elements of the... Constitution".[4]
Fundamental law and legitimacy of government
One of the most salient features of constitutionalism is that it describes and prescribes both the source and the limits of government power derived from fundamental law. William H. Hamilton has captured this dual aspect by noting that constitutionalism "is the name given to the trust which men repose in the power of words engrossed on parchment to keep a government in order."[13]
Moreover, whether reflecting a descriptive or prescriptive focus, treatments of the concept of constitutionalism all deal with the legitimacy of government. One recent assessment of American constitutionalism, for example, notes that the idea of constitutionalism serves to define what it is that "grants and guides the legitimate exercise of government authority".[14] Similarly, historian Gordon S. Wood described this American constitutionalism as "advanced thinking" on the nature of constitutions in which the constitution was conceived to be a "sett of fundamental rules by which even the supreme power of the state shall be governed."[15] Ultimately, American constitutionalism came to rest on the collective sovereignty of the people, the source that legitimized American governments.
(Color added to highlight specific points)
Could you elaborate in your words what is meant by "a higher law" ... particularly in context of "the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law" and constitutionalism "is the name given to the trust which men repose in the power of words engrossed on parchment to keep a government in order" ... is it that the written human law ensconced in, say the US Constitution, is paramount to any personal law or belief?
In regards to Trump, do his frequent claims that the Constitution allows him to do what he wants meet the smell test?
Was his use of his position to attempt to extort a foreign government leader into assisting his re-election campaign overstepping the bounds?
Is his refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the House in pursuit of due diligence on oversight overstepping the bounds?
You're just repeating a fake argument Trump made up. California has been experiencing longer, hotter fire seasons, diminishing snowpack, and longer droughts, and that's why the trend has been more fires and more dangerous fires.
Why has only California been experiencing them, why not Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana? Wouldn't it be interesting if the news media would interview some forest management officials of the above states and ask them why their states have far fewer wildfires than California? They'd probably get an earful, one that they'd rather keep covered up.
Except it isn't only California, it is also happening in Canada and Siberia.
Proponents of Constitutionalism are similar to or fellow travelers with Libertarians. They believe in "for me, but not for thee".
That's the impression I got, I just wanted to hear what marc had to say.
It seems to me that Trumpty Dumbty is a bull in a china shop when it comes to following the law, and wanted feed-back on that as well.
If we are looking at behavior that is narrowly provided in the Constitution, it seems that would mean appearing in hearings when lawfully subpoenaed. The House subpoenas are lawful and necessary for them to provide the Constitution mandated oversight on the Executive branch and the separation of powers.
... Is there anyone on the right who finds it suspicious that Trump is this determined to keep his tax returns secret?
Or do they just not care that he may have massive debts to Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey involving the financing of his towers -- we know he doesn't use is own money (heaven forfend), but gets others to invest so he can leave them high and dry when they go bankrupt.
That could explain why he gives these three countries whatever they want.
You want to investigate corruption? Start with the tax returns. We know from Cohen that he may have used two sets of books.
He has no legal obligation to release his tax returns and I'm glad he's sticking to it.
Actually he has a legal obligation to provide information to congress so they can properly perform their oversight duties.
This is why he lost in the court and was ordered to provide his tax returns.
This is not to judge whether or not the filing passed the IRS as a legal tax return, the question are
what debts he has with foreign countries (ie what does he owe to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc) thus showing a conflict of interest with companies/businesses he failed to divest himself of, and
do the number used in his tax return match the numbers used to get bank loans for his businesses (Cohen testified he used different numbers) or has he committed bank fraud.
Neither of these have anything to do with the legality of the tax filing itself, but everything to do with whether or not Humpty Dumbty Trumpy is committing fraud.
Mueller debacle had no reason for existing in the first place because it had no legal reason for doing an investigation.
Lie. The purpose of the Mueller investigation was to look into Russian interference in the 2016 election and any other crimes they came across in their investigation. Multiple russians have been indicted for interference in the election.
Including now the recent conviction of Roger Stone. So much winning ...
To date, more people in the Trump camp — including foreign nationals — have been indicted for felonies than any administration in the last 50 years except Nixon’s. These include seven Americans and 28 foreign nationals.
Felony Indictments (as of 9/17/2018) in Trump Campaign/Administration
President
Party
Years in Office
# People Indicted
# People Convicted
# People Imprisoned
Convictions Per Year
Donald Trump
R
1.7*
7 [35]**
6 [7]
2(+3)
3.5 [4.1]
Barak Obama
D
8
0
0
0
0
George W. Bush
R
8
16
9
9
1.1
Bill Clinton
D
8
3
2
2
0.25
George H W Bush
R
4
1
1
1
0.25
George H W Bush
R
4
1
1
1
0.25
Ronald Regan
R
8
26
16
8
2.0
Jimmy Carter
D
4
1
0
0
0
Gerald Ford
R
2.4
1
1
1
1
Richard Nixon
R
5.6
76
55
15
9.8
* Through September 17, 2018. ** Numbers in brackets includes foreign nationals.
Source: Kevin Goebel. DailyKos: RoyalScribe / Twitter: @kgoebel, tinyurl.com/POTUSFelonies201809
This includes individuals associated with each President’s private business, campaign, or appointed executive office. For Trump, the top number represents Americans, while the second number in [brackets] represents both Americans and foreign nationals.
If you don’t include foreigners involved in the Trump Campaign, Team Trump already has more people indicted and convicted that any Democratic President in the last 50 years.
And there have been more since then. Most recently Roger Stone.
... in connection with what issue?
In connection with Mueller's report -- mostly with Russian interference, obstruction of justice, lying to congress, etc. and other courts.
Google it and read. If you don't you are living in a bubble of ignorance.
If you don't want to do that then you are not interested in the truth.
Re: Constitutionalism? oops now "originalist" pt 1: re guns
I probably used the wrong word - the term "originalist" would have been a more appropriate one. It's an age-old division, largely along party lines, where conservatives (Antonin Scalia as one example) interpret the constitution as in what it's text actually says,
quote:In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified. This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment, and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five.[1] This notion stands in contrast to the concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the context of the current times, even if such interpretation is different from the original interpretations of the document.[2][3]
The term originated in the 1980s.[4] Originalism is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the "fixation thesis", the notion that an utterance's semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered.[5] Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning
The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists. Alfred Avins and Raoul Berger (author of Government by Judiciary) are associated with this view.
The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, are associated with this view.
Such theories share the view that there is an identifiable original intent or original meaning, contemporaneous with the ratification of a constitution or statute, which should govern its subsequent interpretation. The divisions between the theories relate to what exactly that identifiable original intent or original meaning is: the intentions of the authors or the ratifiers, the original meaning of the text, a combination of the two, or the original meaning of the text but not its expected application.
Article 5 referring to the process of amendment.
So it's a relatively new (1980) interpretation of the Constitution.
Now I would expect an originalist interpretation of amendment 2 ...
quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
... would mean that people with arms should be members of a state organized, funded and trained militia as defined in the Constitution, in the current manner of the individual State National Guard units operating today (see Constitution:
quote:Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
... and I would NOT expect that to include private ownership of mass killing machines, or carrying them in public, as those - along with proper training in their use would be provided by the National Guard units, or the armed services should they enlist.
We do not normally see any armed service members carrying arms in public, nor do we normally see any police carrying weapons, except a single service pistol issued for specifically work and protection, and which use is tightly controlled.
Note that I do not see anywhere any provision for individuals to use arms to murder large numbers of innocent citizens going about their normal everyday business, or for arming them for such purpose.
I think you would agree that the founders would find such behavior abhorrent.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."
Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written: "For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was, I believe, a misdemeanor," he explained.
"I mean, obviously, the (2nd) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear.' So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided."
And carrying loaded mass murder weapons in public would also be a misdemeanor (affrighting), because that was the law when the constitution was written.
This debate has been going on for over 100 years, I have no desire to get any more involved with it here.
Do you at least agree that the current situation has gotten out of hand, and that the states have the legal right to pass laws regulating weapons and their use? Scalia thought so.
Re: Constitutionalism? re Trump's Criminal Behavior pt #2
I've broken this into two parts because they are different issues
In regards to Trump, do his frequent claims that the Constitution allows him to do what he wants meet the smell test?
For those who don't hate him and wish him out of office before his first term is up, yes.
Hate and political leaning has nothing to do with this simple question, and your answer is totally inadequate.
You claim to be an "originalist" and your answer should be based on that position.
Let me ask again ... consider any president, democrat, republican or independent:
Does the US constitution give the president the absolute right to do whatever he wants.
If you are really an "originalist" I would think your answer would be a resounding NO.
Can you explain why you went all wishy-washy and gave Humpty Dumbty Trumpty a pass?
Would you do the same for Obama or Bill Clinton? Somehow I doubt it given your weaseling answer. Your answer doesn't pass the smell test.
Was his use of his position to attempt to extort a foreign government leader into assisting his re-election campaign overstepping the bounds?
No. Attempting to discover the truth about possible criminal activity of the son of Joe Biden, who isn't, and won't be, his opponent in 2020, had nothing to do with his re-election campaign.
First off, Hunter Biden was investigated and cleared by Ukraine prosecutors in May.
Second, that's not the question. It is against Federal campaign law to ask for or receive assistance from a foreign country. Here is Humpty Dumbty Trumpty asking for a political favor from Ukraine.
Third, using his office of President to ask a personal favor in return for US approved aid is abuse of power.
Fourth, there were no other requests regarding corruption, or requests for investigation of any other people,
Humpty Dumbty Trumpty was withholding approved aid to get the Ukraine president to open an investigation into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.
There were no other requests regarding corruption, or requests for investigation of any other people, and the word corruption does not appear in the phone call memos/transcripts (summaries) for either his first call or his second call (the one where he asks for a favor).
Why was the aid suddenly released after the whistleblower document was released? Because he didn't have the authority to hold it (his lawyers told him).
Why did the Ukraine president cancel an interview with CNN that he had scheduled two days after the document was released? Because the aid came through and the extortion scheme had been exposed.
If he really was "Attempting to discover the truth about possible criminal activity of the son of Joe Biden" then why did the aid suddenly go through and why did the Ukraine president suddenly cancel the scheduled interview?
Why would that change?
Is his refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the House in pursuit of due diligence on oversight overstepping the bounds?
Nah, he's the president. He should have a few privileges - he does have a lot of things to do, that a large part of the population probably considers more important.
So actually you are just a fake "originalist" and only whine about it when it suits you, not when it really matters.
quote:The assassination of Julius Caesar was a conspiracy of several Roman senators, notably led by Marcus Junius Brutus, Cassius Longinus, and Decimus Brutus, at the end of the Roman Republic. They stabbed Caesar to death in the Theatre of Pompey on the Ides of March (15 March) 44 BC.
In January 44, Caesarwho was already dictatorwas named perpetual dictator by the Senate. This declaration made many senators of the conservative Optimates faction fear that Caesar wanted to overthrow the Republic and establish a monarchy; they thus decided to kill him to save the Republic. Despite the death of Caesar, the conspirators were unable to restore the institutions of the Republic, and the ramifications of the assassination led to the Liberators' civil war and ultimately to the Principate period of the Roman Empire.
All but two of the "witnesses" were not witnesses, they wre reporting third and fourth hand hearsay. Aand there is no mention of "aid" in the transcript of the phone call.
Every testimony to date has supported the bare facts that aid was withheld, that favors were asked for -- as detailed in the letter/memo of the August 12 phone call.
So far neither Trump nor the republicans have presented any exculpatory evidence:
quote:Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt.[1] It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to present guilt.
In many countries, including the United States, police and prosecutors are required to disclose to the defendant exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant enters a plea (guilty or not guilty).[2]
Per the Brady v. Maryland decision, prosecutors have a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence even if not requested to do so. While the prosecution is not required to search for exculpatory evidence and must disclose only the evidence in its possession, custody, or control, the prosecution's duty is to disclose all information known to any member of its team, e.g., police, investigators, crime labs, et cetera. In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such a requirement follows from constitutional due process and is consistent with the prosecutor's duty to seek justice.[3]
So far all the evidence presented is inculpatory. All republicans have done is pretend that nothing happened.
The bare minimum evidence that everyone should agree on:
The aid was held up
holding up the aid endangered the Ukrainians
holding up the aid damaged out relationship with Ukraine
the only person who could hold up the aid is Trump
holding up the aid potentially benefited two parties:
Russia (1)
Trump (2)
the aid was released immediately after the whistle-blower's document became public
there is no other reason known for the aid to be held up
(1) -- it weakens the apparent support for Ukraine from the west and emboldens his expansionist behavior. This is evident from watching Russian TV, where they are advising Ukraine to side with Russia.
(2) -- it allows Giulliani, as Trump's personal lawyer/representative, to verbalize the quid pro quo (extortion) of "deliverables" ... investigation into Biden, the mythical DNC server etc
The action of Trump (whitehouse, administration, etc) in refusing to provide any evidence is (a) obstruction of justice (withholding evidence is a crime) and (b) implies there is no exculpatory evidence they could release, and (c) gives the impression of guilt.
™ Version 4.2
(1)