The Right Side of the News

WHAT? What's the point of having current judges? Are you making some kind of sick joke?

After you said, "The Democrats ARE a socialist party these days," I asked if you could name any position of the Democratic party that is socialist. In another I believe you've already admitted that you can't. I think it's pretty much just Bernie who is being confusing about socialism. Sometimes he talks about it as if it just means social programs like Social Security and Medicare, which aren't socialism, and sometimes he talks about actual socialism, which he apparently favors as an eventual goal. Democratic socialism - Wikipedia Assuming that by socialism you mean public ownership of business and industry, we agree that socialism is not a good way to go.--Percy

I did not misuse "Never-Trumper"I hear all the time about Hillary emails that are KNOWN to have been classified despite her obstruction of justice in doing away with them.The redcacted parts don't contain useful information, that's a leftist claim, not mine. They are redacted usually to protect people who should be protected.That's how I know there is nothing in the redacted portions to do anything but confirm what Barr already concluded from what was actually available. And it's the judge's idea that there would be more information of a different sort than Barr had that makes the judge most likely a Never Trumper/Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm asking how can you deal with current issues if you don't let current judges consider them?

Current judges should be educated in the original intent of the Constitution and taught to apply it to current legal issues. This is how some ARE taught, they are true Constitutionalists, they are conservatives. Those are the ones Trum and other conservatives want on the Supreme Court and on other courts because they will interpret the Constitutionj rightly. There is something really scary about your thinking, kind of shows what a mess the country is in that you, although a Canadian, still you parobably represent too many Americans as well, a real mess if you don't know what originalist means and the history of the insane idea of the "living" Constitution that is tearing the Constitution to shreds by turning America into a Communist state bit by bit.

That sounds more like indoctrination than education.How do you know so infallibly what the original intent of the Constitution was, especially in the context of issues that didn't even exist when the Constitution was written? How could the framers even have an intent about things they had never heard of?

Studying the Constitution correctly in the light of changing views means study8ing all the writings of the founding generation that shed light on what they meant in writing it. It's not about changing issues, it's about the principles they wanted to be foundational to the nation based on centuries of European history. Chainging it to suit changing views is only going to bring back all the injustices that were painstakingly corrected over the centuries in Europe. We already see that happening, at least we on the right do as we see the Left rejecting freedom of religion and freedom of speech, at least for everybody but themselves.The way you deal with changing issues and points of view is by knowing the original intent very very well so that you don't change THAT but know how to apply it rightly, and then you can AMEND the Constitution, which was something provided for IN that Constitution, and then what you do is you apply the PRINCIPLE embodied in the Constitution to the new point of view. It takes a lot more knowledge than either you or I have, especially you.

Why would you want to be saddled with the principles of a bunch of slavers, racists and misogynists? Well, no. It was changing views that reduced (some of) the injustices like slavery, racism and misogyny. There's still a lot of injustice that needs to be eliminated, not restored.

Well, yes. I'd be concerned about anyone in a position of power who makes decisions based upon impulse, emotion and conspiracy theories instead of facts, information from experts, consultation with advisors, due diligence and calm deliberation. I think we as a people have every right to a president with the qualities I listed above.--Percy

I'm going to toss this in here to stir your pot a bit: A little truth behind the scenes.Enjoy

I can't speak for anyone else, but I, for one, am glad to see Faith participating in the political threads again. And this isn't sarcasm. I'm always a little leery about discussing the "rights" of political office holders. They may have, by virtue of their position, authority to make various decisions and may be given certain privileges, but I think the word "right" has the wrong connotations in this context.

Dj vu is a powerful mental shock to an old one with a fragile mental constitution.It took me longer than I care to admit to realize I had already seen this and gave you a cheer for it. I get enough of these shocks without you conspiring to give me more.Here. Take your second cheer and let me alone.

A ship is not a hospital nor does it have the capacity to become one -- it is an incubator.A military base does have medical facilities and can erect quarantine structures as needed.Enjoy

This is true. What does it mean to be a conservative or on the right in the age of Trump, since Trump isn't really either. He's an opportunist. Well, not really. There's all those pesky amendments to the original, and then there's conservative opposition to a woman's right to choose, antagonism toward separation of church and state, and restrictions on the right to vote. And if Trump's views are now the views of conservatives then there's conflation of criticism of the government with anti-Americanism, antagonism toward a free press, racism, and misogyny. Now you're confusing totalitarianism with facism. Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to both, but there *is* a difference.I think all reasonable people on both the right and left are opposed to totalitarianism and fascism.--Percy

Well, I see I was right that you would argue interminably and nonsensically. You keep making claims about stories that are "fake news" but never show any that actually are. This is true, but all reporting from all points of the political spectrum does this. You're just making up complaints. This makes no sense. The headlines I provided are all written in the same style, whether from the left or right. Here are headlines from conservative sources:

• New York Post: Trump accuses Buttigieg, Klobuchar of 'quid pro quo' with Biden
• Washington Examiner: Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States | Washington Examiner
• Fox News: Trump touts progress in battling coronavirus, slams Dem rivals during North Carolina campaign rally | Fox News

By your definition your conservative headlines are not about the rally, either, which is crazy, which you are if you really believe what you wrote. Could we please have a serious discussion? Could you please stop pretending you don't know how headlines are written? Very few thought Trump had much of a chance of winning the election. He was criticized because of what he said and did, not because they were afraid he would win. If you'd like to instead say that they were afraid of what it would mean if he did win then I would wholeheartedly agree with that, and events since the election have shown this fear was well merited. There were headlines from both the right and left that mentioned the timing.You continue on to critique the list of articles: Since only one of those headlines mentions the timing I assume you're referring to the body of the articles. The Politico article mentions the timing in only one paragraph out of twelve. The Hill link is to a "Watch live" link and didn't have an article. The five sentence description only mentions the timing in one sentence. I posted that link because at the time I posted The Hill hadn't yet made available their article on the rally, but here it is now: https://thehill.com/...ffes-at-rally-on-eve-of-super-tuesday. In this article The Hill doesn't mention the timing, though it does quote Trump speaking about Super Tuesday.All three articles, even the brief one, only mentions the timing and move on to cover what Trump said at the rally. You can't define mainstream and non-mainstream as left and right. Fox News ratings exceeds the ratings of all other TV news programs, so it is by definition mainstream. The circulation of the Washington Examiner is only 45,000, but it is the conservative newspaper in our nation's capital, so it is mainstream. The circulation of the New York Post is 426,000, fourth most in the US and so very mainstream.If you want to distinguish between right and left you can't use mainstream and non-mainstream as your terminology. But Fox News wasn't alone in describing Trump's defense of his administration's handling of the coronavirus. So did Politico:

quote:

---

The president also praised his administration for its response to the threat from a spreading coronavirus epidemic. He defended closing U.S. borders to foreign nationals from China and said his administration was working closely with pharmaceutical companies to manufacture preventative measures for the virus though he did not specify what that could look like.

​

Trump framed the coronavirus as an issue of border security as well, saying that those who criticized his decision to close borders to certain countries were fringe globalists who cared more about keeping borders open than protecting the country from infection.

---

And guess whether this paragraph comes from The Washington Post or Fox News:

quote:

---

The coronavirus outbreak has killed more than 3,100 people around the world and upended life for many others. In the U.S., the number of infections has surpassed 100, with six dead. Federal officials have not advised against large gatherings in the U.S., leaving that to local officials.

---

If you guessed either one you'd be right. The original source of that paragraph is the AP. I bet when you read that paragraph at Fox News that you thought they were just being factual, and that when you read it at The Washington Post that they were slamming Trump.Your judgment is completely cockeyed and biased. If I quoted the full text of a Fox News article and told you it was from The Washington Post you would find all kinds of problems with it. This is just the way you are. If you think something is from a source you agree with then you bless it, and if you think it's from a source you disagree with then you put it through your meat grinder of contrived criticism. What it actually says and what the facts are don't matter to you. You don't say which story you mean, but The Washington Post just reports things straight up. Here are the paragraphs that mention Biden:

quote:

---

The president threw some of his hardest punches at former Vice President Joe Biden, who is coming off a decisive win in Saturday’s South Carolina primary. Trump picked at Biden’s propensity for rhetorical stumbles on the stump, suggesting it was a sign of senility.

​

I honestly don’t think he knows what office he’s running for, Trump said. He speculated that if Biden wins the White House, he’s not going to be running it. Other people are going to. They’re going to put him into a home and other people are going to be running the country and they’re going to be super left radical crazies.
...
It’s a crucial moment in the nomination battle: Biden is making the case that moderates need to consolidate behind him to stop Sanders, a Democratic socialist, and give Democrats a shot at beating Trump in November.
...
Trump speculated there may have been a quid pro quo for Buttigieg the offer of a job in the next Democratic administration for dropping out and endorsing Biden.

---

The Fox News story is very similar in style. If I showed you both stories without attribution you wouldn't know which was The Washington Post and which was Fox News:

quote:

---

Trump opened his rally going right after his two main Democratic rivals — mocking former Vice President Joe Biden’s recent verbal flubs and labeling Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as a radical socialist.

​

There is not a lot of enthusiasm for Biden, Trump said. I thought he gave up the presidency the other day because he said he was running for the Senate.

​

He added: Today he said Super Thursday.

​

Trump’s jabs are in reference to comments Biden made on the stump last week in which he said he was running for the Senate, as well as Monday’s gaffe when he said Super Thursday instead of Super Tuesday.
...
Trump’s appearance in the Tar Heel State comes on the eve of the Super Tuesday primaries and on a day when the battle for the Democratic nomination appeared to coalesce around Sanders and Biden following the departure from the race of Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg also pinning his hopes on Super Tuesday, but he trails both frontrunners in the polls.

---

You said this in an earlier post. I told you I included it so you had something you were comfortable with. They're all just news articles. If I only provided text and didn't tell you where they came from you'd never figure out which came from where.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.