Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3479 of 5796 (866957)
11-17-2019 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3441 by xongsmith
11-14-2019 10:13 PM


Re: global warming
You could google "global warming" and find that your view is simply ignorant.
So it's now "global warming" this week? I thought that was an old term, I thought it had been changed to "climate change". I guess it's interchangeable, depending on the politics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3441 by xongsmith, posted 11-14-2019 10:13 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3480 of 5796 (866958)
11-17-2019 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3442 by dwise1
11-14-2019 10:29 PM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
A lot of news services carried Wednesday's open testimonies live, all of it (albeit cutting back to the studio during recesses). A guest today on the Dean Obeidallah Show (Sirius XM) talked about switching over to FOX News for their coverage. He reports that they were showing a video of a baby beluga whale while asking whether that baby beluga was a Russian spy. His report was that while FOX News did carry the opening statements, they selectively cut away during the actual testimony.
All news outlets cut in and out of different stories as their scheduling / advertising time slots work in. At later times, Fox news showed a large amount of questioning periods by Republicans like Jim Jordan, all of which were completely cut out by ABC World News Tonight, while it showed detailed testimony of Ambassador Yovanovitch. Though I saw on Fox where she was asked if she had evidence of bribery, to which she answered "no". ABC didn't have time to show that part I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3442 by dwise1, posted 11-14-2019 10:29 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3481 of 5796 (866959)
11-17-2019 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3444 by RAZD
11-15-2019 8:31 AM


Re: Constitutionalism?
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?
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, and what it and its associated history like the Federalist Papers tell us about the intent of the framers.
Non-conservatives / progressives interpret it as a living, flexible document that can be bent and reshaped according to ever changing, more modern times. They claim that the founders couldn't have known about how society would change 200 years into the future, etc.
Originalism - Wikipedia
Living Constitution - Wikipedia
This debate has been going on for over 100 years, I have no desire to get any more involved with it here.
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.
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.
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.
Edited by marc9000, : forgot to answer all questions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3444 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2019 8:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3488 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2019 1:00 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 3491 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2019 4:30 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 3482 of 5796 (866960)
11-17-2019 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3448 by Percy
11-15-2019 9:12 AM


Re: The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
Is there anyone on the right who finds it suspicious that Trump is this determined to keep his tax returns secret?
No.
Most any organization or individual who has lots of money isn't quickly willing to make every detail of how they got it, public. Most of those "on the right" are much more concerned about healthcare, national security, the economy etc. to worry about all the various witch hunts against Trump.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3448 by Percy, posted 11-15-2019 9:12 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3483 of 5796 (866961)
11-17-2019 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3463 by Percy
11-16-2019 11:01 AM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
Right in the very preamble of the Constitution it says that the purpose is to "insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare." If you're against that then you're not a constitutionalist.
So I'm an originalist, and you're a living constitutionalist. My opinion is that if the constitution is bendable and shapeable to an extreme extent, then we might as well not have it. Thomas Jefferson put it this way;
quote:
To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare. For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.
It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.
Jefferson on Taxes and the General Welfare (1791) | Online Library of Liberty
marc9000 writes:
Your use of this word seems to be an attempt to sugar-coat increases in government power. It's exactly like saying "Hitler voluntarily killed 6 million Jews to make the world a better place."
Godwin's law strikes again, plus this makes little sense. What is true is that as the world's wealth has grown the ability of government to do good with that wealth (as opposed to billionaires soaking up wealth by purchasing political power) has also grown. It would much more accurately be called an increase in government's recognition and acceptance of its responsibilities.
Do you agree with, or think it's good for the U.S. for Bloomberg to dedicate $100 million in 2020 ad campaigns against Trump?
Bloomberg Launches $100 Million Anti-Trump Ad Campaign | HuffPost Latest News
marc9000 writes:
Did you believe all of these similar types of predictions when they came out decades ago?
This bears no relevance to climate science.
How were those false predictions different from today's climate science predictions? The political motivations were identical (increase the size and scope of government) the "science" was identical (show a lot of charts and graphs that can be made to say whatever their creators want them to say) What can you show that is different between yesterdays predictions of doom versus today's predictions of doom?
Read your own words again. You said, "Climate change can and has happened from other sources completely unrelated to human activity," and I said not this time. Spelling it out, the climate change we're experiencing now is definitely not "completely unrelated to human activity."
But it is still partly unrelated to human activity, and those other non-human causes / sources can't possibly be pinpointed and predicted to an accuracy that separates them from artificial changes (government mandates) to human behavior. Which solidifies my earlier claim, that the harm, or uselessness, of government mandates to reduce climate change have no accountability.
But don't forget that all the climate models say that even if we reduced greenhouse gas production to zero right now that it would take decades and more before the climate change momentum that has already built up would peak and begin reversing.
That means that no matter what we do, citiies like Miami Beach and Alexandria and Venice are already doomed.
Thank you, so no matter what we do, politicians who decide how much of our money and freedoms they are going to take to combat climate change don't have to worry about being accountable for what they do our freedoms, our economy. Very convenient for the politicians that the climate models work that way.
marc9000 writes:
Carbon credit trading is still in it's infancy, has already made some millionaires,...
Who?
Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire
This seems like a good thing. Publicly owned corporations have a responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits, so undoubtedly there would be profits. Things that make money are more likely to happen, so if there are profits to be had in fighting climate change then that is a good thing.
I don't think profits are a good thing when those who are paying for the profits (the general public) aren't getting a defined product or service that they're willing to pay for.
Unfortunately it is usually easier to make money by ignoring the impact on the environment, for example coal or power companies that dump slag or ash into huge ponds that pollute groundwater and leave towns with enormous cleanup bills.
I've always wondered just what environmentalists expect coal and power companies to do with their waste, they can't make it disappear, or send it into outer space. "Cleanup" seems to always be a gathering process, often loading waste into fossil fuel burning trucks, and taking it somewhere else on the exact same planet, and dumping it there, because "there" is an "approved" waste site. And it always seems to be very expensive.
Why are you suddenly badmouthing the profit motive? Aren't you a capitalist? Is it just that you don't like to see companies making money on something you don't believe is real?
There is a world of difference between profits that are made in free exchange of goods and services, versus profits that are made through forcing the general public to pay money for things that they can't see, or experience.
Your arguments are all over the place and don't really bear on the point you're trying to make, but addressing this anyway and without checking your numbers, yes, the transportation industry has some huge pension commitments, among them car manufacturers and the Teamster's Union. As of 2016 General Motors had a global pension obligation of $92.9 billion and was underfunded by $18.3 billion. This means that their pensioners are already receiving notices that place them into one of several categories according to age: a) their pensions will not be affected (the oldest pensioners); b) their pensions will be reduced by around 20% sometime in the next 10 years if the underfunding cannot be remedied (the next oldest pensioners); c) their pensions will be reduced by substantial but currently unknown amounts sometime in the next 10 to 20 years if the underfunding cannot be remedied (the youngest pensioners).
This has nothing to do with climate change.
But it has something to do with corruption. I don't see big, old, stagnant, troubled companies getting involved with anything unless they smell money.
Speaking of corruption, as an aside, I remember very well a little trivia question I saw in a car magazine in the early 70's. "How many U.S. car manufacturers have come on the scene since 1900, and how many are left today?" The answer, almost 600. And how many were left (at that time) - Four. GM, Ford Chrysler, and American Motors. It make me wonder, why were so many guys interested in starting car companies in the teens, 20's and 30's mainly, and why (other than the short-lived DeLorean, and Bricklin) have there been zero guys interested in starting car companies since 1950?
There were still about 10 or 15 car companies left by 1950, but they all dropped off in the 50's, it's somewhat understandable, GM, Ford and Chrysler were doing things right in the 50's, and the others, Kaiser, Studebaker, Packard, Nash, were crippled by the 40's war effort. American Motors lasted awhile longer, but they were starting to have trouble in the 50's.
The U.S. general public really flocked to imported cars by the 1980's, because they weren't satisfied with what the U.S. companies had to offer. Where were new car company start-ups?
There's more corruption in U.S. business than most all of us can imagine. When climate change mandates really get going, we ain't seen nothing yet.
You sound very anti-business, very untypical for a conservative. There's no need to get older cars banned - the national car fleet turns over too fast for that to be necessary.
I can't quickly find it, but you made some reference earlier to increase the efficiency of the auto fleet, how can it be done without government mandates against the free will of the people?
That's what's amazing to me, there are so many climate protests going on today, and yet no one there attempts to define what they want done. Someone said things still aren't as bad today as they were in the late 60's with all the Vietnam war protests, but I'm not so sure. At least those people back then could say what they wanted very simply, they wanted the U.S. troops out of Vietnam! Today's protesters don't say what they want, they're just angry. (and jealous) It would be nice if they'd define what they want. They show pics and vids of putrid smokestacks and factories, but they have clothes on, carry processed wooden signs, marked with paint, all things that are made in factories. What is it that they want, other than to cry and complain about people more successful than they themselves are?
I was just very specific: reduce our reliance on power generation that produces greenhouse gases. That means fewer coal-fired plants (China has plans to build nearly 400 coal-fired power plants over the next decade, which is very bad) and more wind farms, solar cells, geothermal, nuclear (which needs improved technology), etc.
Less coal, more everything that needs improved technology, which means more expense for already strapped rural America.
You seem to be saying that solving climate change will be a difficult problem, and that the costs might not be borne equally. Agreed.
But we disagree on just how serious of a problem that could turn out to be. The costs could very well enrich a few, and destroy the majority. Venezuela style.
Of course they were grandfathered. All states hold automobiles to the emission standards in effect at the time of manufacture.
You said earlier that older cars are driven less, and are therefore less of a pollution problem. How much less they were driven was not a consideration in my area at that time. How any future tests will be conducted will be strictly political. They can make tailpipe sniffer specifications anything they want.
[to be continued in the coming days, out of time tonight]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3463 by Percy, posted 11-16-2019 11:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3490 by xongsmith, posted 11-18-2019 4:12 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 3499 by Percy, posted 11-19-2019 11:07 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3494 of 5796 (867061)
11-19-2019 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3463 by Percy
11-16-2019 11:01 AM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
[Okay, where was I?]
marc9000 writes:
Mileages weren't considered,..
Of course mileage wasn't considered. What do you think grandfathered means?
You said earlier that old car emissions weren't much of an issue, since they aren't driven as much, which is true. But how much they were driven wasn't a consideration when tests were done here before, and there's no guarantee that they'll be a consideration if / when tests are done again.
Do you think it means that the standards for a given vehicle lessen over time? If so then you'll just have to recognize that that isn't so. A couple years ago I traded in a car that I'd owned for 20 years. It was held to the same emission standards in year 1 as in year 20.
Do you think it might have been just a little less clean burning in year 20 as it was in year 1? I guess it was if the engine was freshly overhauled. Many people who have 10, 15, 20 year old cars find them useful, even if they don't have brand new engines.
Reducing emissions isn't hard. Today I own a hybrid vehicle with recharging capability. While the range for all-electric miles is small (around 30), since I mostly make short trips I almost never use the engine, mostly in the winter when the battery capacity drops by about 20% and the engine is needed to provide heat. I fill up the tank maybe 6 times a year.
It can be hard for many who live in rural America, who have a lifestyle that's much different from yours.
From climate change to guns? Are you in some kind of free association mode? Turn off the TV and focus on the topic. I'm ignoring this.
Oh sorry, I was mainly hoping to get a glimpse of that hottie Mary Bruce again. I believe I'd go liberal for her, if she'd ask me to.
I didn't put quotes around the word "disparaging." I put quotes abound what you said in Message 3217 where you used the word "disparaging":
Here's my quote from 3217;
quote:
Most of what you're calling disparaging attitudes have been traditional in the history of the U.S.
"what YOU'RE CALLING disparaging" - the word was used by you, I was simply addressing YOUR USE of the word.
You're living in your imagination. Physical abuse, i.e., assault, is a pretty big deal, and blacks are arrested for assaulting white people all the time. A disproportionate amount of the time, one might say, given the growing evidence of arrests of blacks who have committed no crime.
It's the reporting of it by the mainstream media that's often lopsided. It's done in many clever ways, one of MSM's favorite things is to report white on black crimes including major displays of the picture of the white guy, yet when they (usually very briefly) report on black on white crime, the black guys picture isn't shown.
Again, how do you know "climate change action involves untold billions in corruption and bribes"?
I suspect it could happen, using logic and reason. As I linked above, Al Gore has mastered it, and any time anyone makes easy money, there are flocks of imitators who try to do the same thing. And once that kind of corruption gets a foothold, it's often hard to reverse it.
I would say people in general are less medieval today, perhaps you could call it more enlightened. When Grover Cleveland was president women didn't have the vote, the first antitrust laws were brand new, and Jim Crow laws were rampant. We've already come a long way, but we still have far to go.
And some things never change. Did you notice how Adam Schiff's first hearings were held in the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility"?
Sensitive compartmented information facility - Wikipedia
A bunker for national security / national defense / national emergency use? Schiff used it for partisan political meetings. I've always taken an interest in similarities of today's Democrat party's antics, versus the antics of the King of Great Britain which led up to the revolution. Here's a paragraph from the Declaration of Independence;
quote:
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
See any similarities there? I discovered this one all by myself, never heard it on any news or opinion show. I'd have probably gotten a gold star if I had time to call into a talk radio show with that one.
marc9000 writes:
The recent Baltimore riots weren't racist? Elijah Cummings, or Don Lemon of CNN are never racists?
You're not going to make any headway arguing that racism is greater in the cities than rural areas because it just isn't true. See, for example, The black-white and urban-rural divides in perceptions of racial fairness, which has a chart at the top indicating that racist attitudes are greater in rural than urban areas by every measure across the board.
You missed my point - racism goes both ways. Black lives matter, Black Panthers, Black Entertainment Television, Black History Month, calls for reparations for slavery, all racist. The reason?, if those establishments were reversed, they would be loudly condemned as racist. White Lives Matter, White entertainment Television, White History Month? Now I understand that blacks are a minority compared to whites, and maybe it's harmless for them to have their black entertainment channel, or certain month's commemorating their accomplishments. But they need to be humble and respectful with it, and most of them are. But a significant percentage of them aren't respectable, they're in our face with it. If white people succumb too much, they're going to find themselves the targets and victims of black on white racism.
I didn't comment on the growth of government. It was a comment that when liberals mention socialism that they're only talking about social programs, not the public ownership of business and industry or the nationalization of major industries.
Increases in social programs are a growth of government. When the government grows in some ways, it often gives it more power to grow in other ways.
You've made accusations of bias in the mainstream news media, and it just doesn't hold up.
I'm surprised you continue to deny it. Public opinion polls, actual statistics on negative coverage, the evidence is overwhelming. Here's only one link, just after Trump won the election,it's all I'm going to bother with for now.
quote:
There’s one thing I’m certain about going into Wednesday: The mainstream media is going to need to go through a serious readjustment period after this presidential election. The collusion between reporters and the Clinton campaign, revealed by WikiLeaks, have laid bare to the American public the left-leaning bias of the press.
The American public thinks the media wants Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to win by an almost 10-to-1 margin, according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll released late last month. It mirrors an Associated Press/GkF poll showing 56 percent of likely voters, including 87 percent of Donald Trump’s supporters, believe the media is against him.
Mainstream media maligned: 10 examples of blatant bias - Washington Times
They've actually done the exact opposite of going through a "readjustment period" in the 3 years since this piece was written, they've made it clear to everyone how biased they are.
[This weekend, maybe even Thanksgiving weekend, I'll try to get to more replies - can't wait to do some whistleblowing on RAZD. ]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3463 by Percy, posted 11-16-2019 11:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3529 by Percy, posted 11-20-2019 11:50 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3495 of 5796 (867064)
11-19-2019 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3493 by Percy
11-18-2019 11:25 PM


Re: More Trump Attack/Insult Tweets
Marc and Faith aren't even trying to keep up,
I'm very busy at work - I'll try to answer all the replies to me thus far, in a few more days/ weeks, but I'm getting close to being done. You'll eventually get your last word in as usual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3493 by Percy, posted 11-18-2019 11:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3567 of 5796 (867267)
11-22-2019 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 3484 by Percy
11-18-2019 11:24 AM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
It wasn't clear to me whether you accepted the reality of the hollowing out of rural America and the dramatic impacts it is having.
Yes, though I don't think give away programs and increased government involvement is going to solve much. I do understand that a big reason for increased hardships in rural America is environmental requirements and restrictions. One example; there wasn't much need for hospitals in the region of the Keystone XL pipeline when Obama was president, because he didn't allow construction activity there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3484 by Percy, posted 11-18-2019 11:24 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3595 by Percy, posted 11-23-2019 4:16 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3570 of 5796 (867272)
11-22-2019 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3488 by RAZD
11-18-2019 1:00 PM


Re: Constitutionalism? oops now "originalist" pt 1: re guns
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:
I don't expect that, while I'm sure the NRA and others have explained this very thoroughly, I'm not taking the time to look it up, I'll just briefly say that I believe the 2nd amendment refers to two completely separate things, and the only reason they're in the same amendment is because they both involve arms; 1) arms rights and responsibilities for a militia (of that time period) and arms rights for individuals, to always be an intimidating factor against an imperial government.
... 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.
As they would find abhorrent a population rendered defenseless by its government against people that choose to break many laws when they murder large numbers of people. "Mass killing machines" exist, and laws won't make them cease to exist, any more than prohibition made liquor cease to exist in 1920.
marc9000 writes:
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.
You imply this quote of mine was about gun control. IT WAS NOT. It was about different ways of interpreting the constitution. But to answer your question, if Scalia were alive today, he'd probably change his mind. Because climate change hysteria has gotten out of hand. Since he died, we now have the "Green New Deal". We have many people, including Xongosmith, Percy, and others, claiming that simply stopping producing energy like we do today will solve our problems and still enable us to eat and keep warm. We have the AAAS (American Association for Advancement of Science) selling t-shirts that say "Change Climate Change", claims for "climate action now", huge protest marches of angry, jealous people screaming that we "do something". We have small children who are terrified into thinking they aren't going to see much adulthood. We have Percy and many others convinced that some coastal cities are going to be underwater very soon, and there's nothing that can be done about it now. The list of this type of thing goes on and on, and it can only lead to one logical conclusion, that the U.S. today is in more danger of government searches and seizures than it ever has been in history. Probably at least half, if not more than half, of all fossil burning engines don't have license plates hanging on them. Lawnmowers, chainsaws, weedeaters, farm equipment, construction equipment, the list is long. While some type of gasoline rationing program could be an alternative to heavily armed government invasions of private property, it's doubtful that rationing would be politically feasible. The targeting of small, defined segments of the population, one step at a time, is the only way to meet the significant, greenhouse gas reducing demands of angry, jealous mobs who constantly point fingers at others for climate change solutions.
The left believes new gun laws will be their ticket to searches and seizures of people they are jealous of. They know that laws don't make guns vanish into thin air of course, they just know that government searches are much easier to carry out if a person can be arrested just for having, or being suspected of having, a gun.
The time for individuals to be armed is more important today than ever before, if the U.S. is to avoid a Venezuela style collapse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3488 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2019 1:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3586 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2019 10:23 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3573 of 5796 (867276)
11-22-2019 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3491 by RAZD
11-18-2019 4:30 PM


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?
marc9000 writes:
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.
My answer is a resounding NO, and it doesn't pass your smell test because I didn't address your false statement. Trump has never said, or implied, that he can "do whatever he wants". What he does is responds to questions about whether he thinks he can do whatever he wants in a certain, defined situation. Like when he's dealing with a foreign leader, or working with classified information. He has a lot of responsibilities and duties under the constitution, and this is a more dangerous time than most of the past, in that Trump has many in a Democrat congress who would freely commit treason to block him from succeeding at something, or to help get him removed from office.
First off, Hunter Biden was investigated and cleared by Ukraine prosecutors in May.
I would prefer that he was investigated by Americans.
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.
If only we had an investigation of the phone calls Hillary made in obtaining the Steele Dossier. But you wouldn't be interested, would you?
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?
This is all trivial, witch hunt stuff. We'll find out how important all this is when the current impeachment stuff is over.
A large part of the reason Trump was elected was to challenge all the "this is how we've always done it" mindset in dealing with foreign countries. He's doing it from his experience as a businessman, not a politician. And of course the answer to that is "he's failed at everything he's ever done!!!!!" But since unemployment is now at a 50 year low, maybe he's finally learned how to do something in his old age.
marc9000 writes:
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.
Well you give yourself a pretty convenient position, since I'm an originalist I have to adhere to a stringent interpretation of the constitution (interpreted by you) and you living constitutionalists can justify bending and shaping the constitution any way you want, "to promote the general welfare"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3491 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2019 4:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3594 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2019 4:13 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3574 of 5796 (867277)
11-22-2019 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3492 by Percy
11-18-2019 9:03 PM


Re: Civil Debate
You're simply wrong. I issued you a challenge to match you one-for-one on insults and attacks and have kept up a steady stream of Trump attacks/insults in a series of posts where you have not replied once. Begin at Message 3461 and follow the posts back. So far you're losing 19-0. Let's give you the Tlaib quote and call it 19-1.
This would be true if all insults were all on the same level. But I consider an MF attack, complete with the sale of t-shirts, to be worth at least 20 or 30 H words or S words. Even when Trump talking about grabbing women by their virginias, he didn't specify any particular virginia. The MF name was specifically designated for Trump.
marc9000 writes:
I don't think Simon and Schuster made those statements...
Those words are at Simon and Schuster's website on their page about the author of The Art of the Deal, Donald J. Trump. Visit that link and you'll see the words you quoted are from Simon and Schuster:
Here was my entire sentence, that you DISHONESTLY chopped in half;
quote:
I don't think Simon and Schuster made those statements based on what they hope will happen, but largely on what has already happened, based on the sales and reviews of Trump's books.
I never denied that Simon and Schuster made those statements. This is similar to RAZD dishonestly attributing my quote about constitutional interpretation to gun control. Why you do that I don't know, it just seems to be a dishonest method of amusing your like minded passersby who aren't closely keeping up with the discussion.
You're both pretty unhinged, and I'm going to disengage for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3492 by Percy, posted 11-18-2019 9:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3578 by Percy, posted 11-23-2019 12:53 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 3575 of 5796 (867278)
11-22-2019 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 3496 by Faith
11-19-2019 9:01 PM


Re: More Trump Attack/Insult Tweets
I may leave it to Marc, he usually does a better job than I do on this stuff because he's more knowledgeable about it all. And I have trouble reading all that white stuff so I'll have to transfer it to a better background. I can do that but am not up to it at the moment.
I don't think I'm more knowledgeable, but thanks. I can't believe the way some of your words are blanked out. TDS is really taking its toll around here. But I hope you'll keep at it, I admire your staying power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3496 by Faith, posted 11-19-2019 9:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3641 of 5796 (867701)
12-01-2019 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3633 by Percy
11-26-2019 12:51 PM


Re: More Trump Attack/Insult Tweets
Faith and Marc: If you're not even going to make a pretense of trying to find the Democrat/news-media attacks and insults that you claim Trump is responding to (rather than initiating unprovoked) then I think you have to concede the point. Trump issues many, many gratuitous insults and attacks on an almost continuous basis user Twitter, his rallies, and speeches.
It would take a lot of effort to go back to 2015 and 2016, to see how the news media / Democrats started out with their war against Trump. To say that they started it would of course be an understatement. Hours of research would only result in one or two sentences from you handwaving it away.
BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. Trump speaks from the position of president - U.S. presidents have always been considered the most powerful man in the world, and for generations, U.S. presidents are obviously the most hated man in the world. Anything any president says is always carefully scrutinized, and is often immediately, automatically discarded by a sizeable part of the U.S. population, and the world. What immediate, serious harm do you think Trump's insults do to the lives of ordinary citizens?
With the news media, it's another story. Though they're quite powerful, they're not as powerful as the president. But they're not nearly as hated either. They pretend to be "journalists" - people who simply report information. When they lie, when they twist and distort to help one political party, they're betraying a public trust, they're doing something that's not their job. While the public is increasingly getting wise to them, there are still a lot of people who blindly trust them, without bothering to fact check them near as much as they do one president. That does a lot more harm to the country than Trump's tweets.
As you may or may not know, (I don't think it's been in the news much) Trump made an unannounced visit to troops in Afghanistan over the Thanksgiving holiday. Newsweek's quote went like this;
quote:
which the mag said would include tweeting, golfing and more before he ended up making a surprise visit to US troops in Afghanistan.
Trump blasts Newsweek over story on his Thanksgiving plans
But it wasn't a lie!!!!! The "more" that was in this description could have included that! Amazingly, Newsweek says they fired this reporter. What probably inspired them to do that was the fact that his trip couldn't be completely covered up, as couldn't the pictures and videos that so obviously show Trump's admiration and respect for low level U.S. soldiers. But a lot of Newsweek skimmers don't know a thing about that firing, or that trip for that matter, so they were successfully fooled. This is only one of countless examples of how the news media can twist and distort without actually lying. It does far more damage to society than Trump's tweets.
Here's another link for you and RAZD to enjoy.
Fake News Craps All Over Trump’s Thanksgiving Afghanistan Visit With The Troops – Def-Con News
quote:
If Trump did it, the fake news is going to crap on it. The President made a surprise Thanksgiving visit with the troops in Afghanistan and the liberal media found a way to make it negative. At this point the temper tantrum known as Trump Derangement Syndrome is less about being personally offended by the results of an election and more about liberals being unhappy with themselves. These are self-loathing people who are trying desperately to make everyone as miserable as they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3633 by Percy, posted 11-26-2019 12:51 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3643 by Percy, posted 12-02-2019 1:26 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 3647 by Percy, posted 12-04-2019 7:22 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 3733 of 5796 (868172)
12-07-2019 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3647 by Percy
12-04-2019 7:22 AM


Re: More Trump Attack/Insult Tweets
marc9000 writes:
I never denied that Simon and Schuster made those statements.
Message 3578 Sorry, Mark, I misinterpreted what you wrote.
Percy writes:
(to Faith) Message 3705 Marc Levin is lying to you, too.
Percy writes:
(to Faith) Message 3711 Either Marc Levin is lying to you or you misunderstood what he said...
Confusing me with Mark Levin? Seems kinda strange. Which one of us do you like the most?
Let's try this again. You and Faith have claimed that attacks and insults from Trump are not something he initiates but are only his response to attacks and insults from Democrats and the mainstream media. This is what Trump said today in London in answer to a question about House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff:
quote:
"I’ve learned nothing from Adam Schiff. I think he’s a maniac. Adam Schiff is a deranged human being. I think he grew up with a complex for lots of reasons that are obvious. I think he is a very sick man. And he lies. Adam Schiff made up my conversation with the president of Ukraine.
...
"This guy is sick. He made up the conversation. He lied. If he didn’t do that in the halls of Congress, he'd be thrown in a jail. But he did it in the halls of Congress, and he’s given immunity. This is a sick person. He is a liar."
Trump mentions Schiff's parody of Trump's phone conversation with Zelensky, but that was way back in September.
At least he didn't call him a MF'er. But "parody"? It's actually more accurate to call it what it was, a lie. Schiff was trying to mislead - he wasn't considering the possibility that Trump just might release the transcripts of the actual phone call. When Trump did that, it laid bare Schiff's lie. Schiff made a clumsy attempt to do what he often sees the news media do for Democrats, and it backfired on him. The news media has been very impressive in their attempts to cover it up.
What current attack or insult is Trump responding to here? Or is it your contention that once Trump concludes he's been attacked or insulted that he has infinite license for issuing future attacks and insults?
That is my contention, it's no different than your obvious contention that once 24 hours has gone by, Trump's responses to news media hate are off limits.
Current attacks/insults score: Trump: 49; Democrats: 1
Well if I could afford it, I could hire a dozen or so people to monitor different segments of the mainstream media in a 24 hour period. (while I'm at work of course) They could each cover different channels and radio stations, we could then tabulate all the results with links, and see how it all measures up to your 49. Let's see, this would include the "reports" of *Anderson Cooper, *Don Lemon, Wolf Blitzer, Jim Acosta, Brian Stelter, Jake Tapper, *Robin Roberts, *David Muir, George Stephanopoulos, Elizabeth Vargas, Jonathan Karl, Cecilia Vega, Tom Llamas, Martha Raddatz, Terry Moran, Lester Holt, *Rachal Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnel, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Alison Camerota, etc. Did I leave anyone out? Oh yes, the entire editorial boards of the NY Times, the Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, many other liberal rags.
(the asterisk in front of some names indicates a gay one) Did I just get all these names from lists, without knowing anything about them? Oh no, I left a lot of names out, I only included the ones that I have specifically seen do Trump put-downs with my own eyes, many of them quoted on Fox News.
But alas, I can't hire anyone. So you can claim a 49 to 1 victory if you like, but I still don't see what impact Trump's insults have on the peace and prosperity that we're experiencing during his presidency. And I can see far more harm to our society by such biased mainstream news reporting.
And it's clear to me that anti-Trump bias is about more than just hate, I think all the high level Democrats and the mainstream media are chasing a big fat carrot. If Michael Bloomberg can pledge $100 million in anti Trump ads, what is to stop George Soros from offering that much or more to any person or group who he would consider most influential in getting Trump removed from office before his first term is up? With possibly a somewhat lessor amount to any Democrat who could beat him in 2020. They all look to me like they are chasing the money.
I caught ABC World News Tonight with *David Muir each evening this week. I think it was Monday, Trump was described as "furious", as he calmly spoke about what he thought of Schiff, or something similar. The next night he was described as "lashing out", for a similar, matter-of-fact statement. Then, Thursday evening, both Joe Biden's and Edith-Bunker Pelosi's meltdowns were reported on. But Pelosi's DON'T MESS WITH ME!!!! tirade wasn't described as "furious" or "lashing out". She just "fired back" according to *Muir. Same with Biden, who said YOU'RE A DAMN LIAR to an elderly man who was, admittedly, being somewhat hostile while asking about his son Hunter. This guy was just a member of the general public, it's not exactly presidential, probably the first time in history a presidential candidate used a 4 letter word while describing to his face one member of the general public. But Biden got pretty much a free pass on it, and of course it's forgotten in the following evening's newscast. While descriptions of "furious" and "lashing out" against Trump often go on several evenings in a row, for only one event.
If you think Trump's responses to this ridiculous impeachment stunt are more damaging to the country than *Muir's fake news alone, then we just have to leave our disagreement there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3647 by Percy, posted 12-04-2019 7:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3734 by DrJones*, posted 12-07-2019 10:39 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 3735 by Faith, posted 12-07-2019 10:43 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 3736 by Coragyps, posted 12-07-2019 10:45 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 3740 by JonF, posted 12-08-2019 9:36 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 3744 by Percy, posted 12-08-2019 5:45 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3774 of 5796 (868278)
12-09-2019 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3744 by Percy
12-08-2019 5:45 PM


Re: More Trump Attack/Insult Tweets
As Schiff's words that I just quoted say, he wasn't trying to mislead at all. You can argue that it isn't appropriate for a U.S. Congressman to engage in parody, or you can argue that it's bad parody, but you can't call it a lie because it accurately captured Trump's meaning.
I don't agree that it was accurate, opinions on its accuracy are divided on political lines. Since they are, Schiff's accountability for it should be much more stringent than it is - he knew / knows that the news media would largely cover for him. As you, and someone else pointed out, his "parody" came out 2 days after Trump released the actual transcript, which made him look foolish in the eyes of all but the most intense Trump haters. It undoubtedly took Schiff longer than 2 days to dream that up, and he either didn't know about the release, or didn't care, since he knew he would be largely covered for.
Really? You're arguing that once some Democrat or liberal or news media attacks/insults Trump once that it justifies all subsequent Trump attacks/insults?
Yes, because Trump only attacked, in a very general way, what he (and many other Americans, obviously) felt was the incompetence of past politicians in his initial presidential-bid announcement in 2015, and he was insulted for that for many months afterward.
marc9000 writes:
Well if I could afford it, I could hire a dozen or so people to monitor different segments of the mainstream media in a 24 hour period.
It's just me you're dealing with, Marc. I'm just one person. I don't have a team of a dozen people.
But you have multiple mainstream news outlets on your side, that you can easily pick and choose from. Many of these have traditional, non-cable, non-premium access, unlike Fox News, or even some of talk radio. I don't think the U.S. founders would have agreed with the mainstream press being as controlled as it is by one political party, (a faction, Federalist Paper #10) It's not necessarily controlled by Democrats because they have correct beliefs, it's controlled by them because dissention / sensationalism sells.
marc9000 writes:
(the asterisk in front of some names indicates a gay one)
I think you have some 'splainin' to do.
Why sure. Depending on what source is consulted, the percentage of lgbt Americans is anywhere from 3.4 to 4.5 %. In looking at the dozen or so most prominent news anchors, it's easy to see that the percentage of lgbt news anchors is much higher, probably 20 to 25%. There is even an organization for it;
NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ Journalists - Wikipedia
The obviously left-leaning news media clearly sees benefits to their causes by giving preferential treatment in hiring them. I use that one word term "gay" as a quick reference to what their political views probably are, in EXACTLY the same way that the word "fundie" is used in and around the scientific community, as a quick reference to those who probably politically disagree with them. There is no difference whatsoever, except one. One term is politically correct, and the other is not. How much am I concerned about political correctness, you wonder? Ask me, please just ask me.
Since you've witnessed these attacks/insults on Trump, you obviously don't need a team of a dozen people to find them and report them here. So why don't just you go ahead and do it?
Because you already know of their existence, you're only trying to send me down rabbit trails that you know I don't have time for. But I did forget to mention, in my previous message about another thing I noticed on World News Tonight, this past week. Pamala Karlan, a professor of law at Stanford Law School, was given probably 3 or 4 full minutes on Thursdays (I think) evening report on her testimony at one of the many Trump impeachment hearings. That's a lot of time on a half hour newscast. She was portrayed by *Muir as a politically neutral analyst, as she recited all her Trump hate. But as I later saw on Fox News, a Republican congressman was asking her; "did you contribute money to Elizabeth Warren's campaign?" To Hillary Clinton's campaign? To Barrack Obama's campaign? The answers to all three were sheepish little "yeses". World News Tonight left that part off, guess there wasn't time. Don't believe me? Too bad, I don't need to prove what I know is true.
So your logic is that because some wealthy people back Democrats that Democratic presidential candidates are just chasing the money. So what is Trump doing when he holds rallies that bring in millions of dollars? Have you perhaps heard of the billionaire Koch brothers who back Republicans (one passed away recently)?
Political rallies, openly made donations to campaigns are different from closed-door bribes and corruption. Can I, or will I prove it? No, it's what I see in my political observation, just like what you see in your political observations, when you string together at least 10 vile words that you believe best describe Trump.
The last time you criticized ABC World News Tonight I found a YouTube video of the precise broadcast you referenced, and it contradicted your claim. Your claims are typically unreliable, so I'm not going to track this one down and will disregard it.
My criticisms of ABC World News generally involve an averaging together of many of their broadcasts. If you're in continual denial of ABC's bias no matter much they double down and expose their bias, then I guess doubling down is a characteristic of the political left.
But the mainstream news media aren't the only ones who occasionally judge Trump's mood as "furious," for example, this headline from Fox News:
But even Fox News will describe Trump as lashing out,
Fox news is less biased than the mainstream media.
You are such a poor researcher. You say so many false things that you could avoid saying with a simple Google. I had no trouble finding an article saying Pelosi "lashes out": Pelosi lashes out at reporter: 'Don't mess with me'
I was referring only to ABC World News Tonight, an over-the-air broadcast that is the only news source for many Americans.
You mean where he called the man a "damn liar?" I disapprove of that, too.
I think it sealed his fate, he's not going to be the nominee. Which means Trump couldn't have been seeking foreign help in an upcoming election, since Biden almost assuredly won't be his opponent.
Biden didn't get a free pass. Here are some of the headlines:
He did on ABC World News Tonight. That's what I was referring to.
You haven't supported your opinions with any actual facts, and what you did say was pretty easy to rebut. In fact, except for noting my misspelling of Mark Levine's name, you've pretty much managed to make it through an entire post without saying a single true thing.
Hmmm, guess that answers my question, you like Levin better than you like me.
One final note, Trump is the 3rd president to be impeached. Andrew Johnson was a Democrat, and was Lincoln's vice president!! Definitely a different time, and things just after that war were complicated in ways we probably can't imagine today. Little doubt that a LOT of people who were indifferent, or even supported Johnson at the beginning of his presidency were really against him when he was impeached. Similarly, a lot of people who voted for Bill Clinton weren't happy with what he did with that cigar, or that he lied under oath to a Federal Grand Jury. So Trump will be the first president to be impeached who did nothing to betray, or upset most all of the people who voted for him. Not what the founders intended IMO. I've heard it said somewhere (no I can't prove it) that if the Democrat house gets by with this without getting themselves in trouble (as is likely), then there's little question that every president in the future will be impeached for something. Not what the founders intended, and not good for the country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3744 by Percy, posted 12-08-2019 5:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3775 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-09-2019 11:59 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 3777 by PaulK, posted 12-10-2019 7:46 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 3778 by JonF, posted 12-10-2019 9:22 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 3784 by Percy, posted 12-10-2019 11:49 AM marc9000 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024