Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Post-Presidency and Insurrection
Percy
Member
Posts: 22955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


(2)
Message 361 of 440 (914149)
12-29-2023 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by marc9000
12-28-2023 8:33 PM


Re: Trump Support Tends Toward the Violent and Undemocratic
marc9000 in Message 356 writes:
The 14th amendment was passed in reaction to the Civil War, but nowhere does it limit its application to that event. It doesn't even mention the Civil War.
It doesn't mention the president either, though it carefully mentions senators and representatives, and ELECTORS of the president and vice-president. It's almost like they never intended for the most popular presidential candidate of all parties to be blocked from the ballot.
It could also be argued that it doesn't apply to the president because an earlier draft of the amendment did mention the president and was later removed, but knowing the reasoning behind the change in language would be helpful.
If the president isn't covered then that would mean that he isn't an officer of the United States, which would make little sense. A number of online articles make reference to the president as an officer of the Executive Branch. For example, Wikipedia describes the president as "the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch." On the other hand, Is the President an “Officer of the United States” for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment? argues at length that the president is not an officer of the United States. The Supreme Court will have the final word.
More importantly, none of those excluded from office after serving the Confederacy were ever convicted of insurrection or treason. This was a key issue addressed by the Colorado Supreme Court in their ruling: what is required for deeming someone as having participated in an insurrection? That's why they stayed their own ruling, on the assumption that it would be appealed to the Supreme Court.
And it won't survive the Supreme Court. Will it be 6-3? 8-1? 9-0?
We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
You raise a good point: Are those with great concerns about a second Trump presidency alarmed by what he says or by what he does? Let's see if I have a good answer. Here's a list of what I think Trump has done to cause such great alarm:

Prevented a peaceful transfer of power for the first time in U.S. history.
Prevented? Was it stopped or delayed in any way? Did he resist leaving the White House on January 20th?
When do you think the transfer of power begins?
Fomented distrust in U.S. elections.
Free speech. Al Gore and Hillary both cried a lot about their elections.
Yes, agreed. Trump was and is exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech as he foments distrust in a key democratic institution of the United States. He's actively undermining our faith that our elections are free and fair.
Reinstated the federal death penalty.
Common throughout most of U.S. history.
Reintroducing cruel punishments like death is very alarming.
Caused a great many covid deaths by making people doubt the efficacy of isolation, masks and vaccines. The last is ironic since his administration helped initiate the covid vaccine efforts.
He would have been criticized no matter what he did on the covid issue. No concrete evidence that a Democrat would have done any better.
If Trump hadn't denigrated public health policies then critics would have had to find far less legitimate issues to comment on.
The US was among the worst performing nations in dealing with covid. Here's a map of the world with the accumulated death rate from the beginning of the pandemic for each country as of a couple weeks ago. It shows the United States as having one of the highest death rates in the world:
Interestingly, the UK had an even worse performance than the US, but during the pandemic they were led by the equally incompetent Boris Johnson.
Lowered taxes on the rich more than anyone else.
Risk takers and job creators? A good economy, energy independence?
Percentage-wise, those who have benefited the most from our economy should also pay the most.
Reduced health care subsidies.
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that gives congress the authority to expend, on objects of health care, the money of its constituents.
Well there's a spurious argument if ever there was one. Perhaps you can describe where the Constitution gives Congress the right to authorize expenditures for going to the moon, for transportation, for agriculture, or for innumerable other things that they authorize expenditures for.
But regarding the actual point I made, reducing health care subsidies is alarming because it reduces the overall health of the nation. Perhaps you've seen the recent news about falling U.S. lifespans and the decreases in average height. These measures reflect on the nation's health, and it's growing worse.
Increased tariffs, apparently under the mistaken impression that it was foreign countries that pay the tariffs and not the people of the U.S.
Increased work requirements for recipients under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) resulting in nearly a million people losing access to food aid.
Coopted much land in national parks for exploitation.
Reduced the percent of people who could qualify for overtime from 30% of workers to 15%.
Loosened environmental standards that resulted in an increase in pollution, particularly greenhouse gases.
Rolled back fuel efficiency requirements for the auto industry.
Imposed tighter restrictions on legal immigration.
Rolled back banking rules designed to prevent another 2008-style banking crisis.
Most of this is an undoing of unconstitutional actions of previous administrations, mostly Obama's. It's called small government, the intent of the framers.
This blanket objection applies to almost nothing in the list.
If there's a common theme running across many of the items in my list it's about putting people first. Many believe that government can be a force for good in people's lives.
Small government was not the intent of the framers. Neither was big government. The size of government wasn't much a focus of their attention. They wanted to give their fledgling democracy the best odds of success. Their goals as expressed in the preamble to the Constitution include the phrase "promote the general Welfare."
marc9000 writes:
Many Trump supporters don't tend to worship the integrity of "democratic institutions"...

How about free and fair elections?
I was referring more to recent "democratic institutions", much of which you referenced above, "fuel efficiency, environmental standards, overtime regulations, SNAP programs, recreational parks, etc etc. you know, all things that i can't undertake to lay my finger on in the Constitution.
Again, you seem to have no idea what our democratic institutions are. Not one of those things you listed is a democratic institution.
What about our representative democracy with its (until last time) peaceful transfer of power?
What happened on January 20th that wasn't peaceful?
Again, when do you think the transfer of power begins?
How about a Justice Department that isn't just the president's law firm? How about courts that can't be swayed by the chief executive? What about equality under the law? How about a Congress that is representative of the people's will? What about a court system that rules according to timeless constitutional principles? How about remaining true to the principles in the Constitution?
Oh, all those things that are big problems in the Biden administration? The Justice Department that refuses to turn over some requested documents by the congressional committee that's investigating Biden's treason? That inspired the impeachment inquiry?
So you agree that those are among our cherished democratic institutions? Do you now understand what democratic institutions are, and that they definitely aren't the things you listed before?
You should take your "mainstream media" complaints to a thread where they'd be on topic.
I know you invited me to start a thread on that, but I wouldn't know where to start. Especially since every one of the dozen or so opponents I would get would pretend that they know nothing about mainstream media bias. I'm not going to attempt to help them.
It's still off-topic. If you don't believe a case can be made for your claim then don't make it.
No political party condones illegal immigration.
Biden's and other Democrat's actions suggest otherwise. There's plenty of money and political power involved in getting more and more uneducated people in the U.S. George Soros is probably more politically powerful than Biden. As are the Mexican drug cartels.
That's still nonsense. No political party condones illegal immigration.
In my view the Biden administration hasn't been particularly enlightened in its management of border problems. I think our number one priority should be respecting human rights as required not just by international law but by simple humanity.
Being all humane to illegal immigrants is being very inhumane to U.S. citizens who are currently almost $34 trillion in debt, and are having enough trouble as it is, in supporting that debt, and watching it increase.
Welcoming immigrants increases the wealth of the country because the number of people working and contributing increases.
marc9000 writes:
January 6th is in the past, the BLM riots are in the past, illegal immigration is in the PRESENT.

These are all still in the present. The political forces responsible for Jnuary 6th are still with us led by the orange one himself, and racism by law enforcement is still with us.
And yes, BLM riots are poised and ready as ever. January 6th type unrest could be poised too, not because of the orange one, but because of the threat of activist courts like Colorado's.
Discriminated peoples will always object to being the object of discrimination. This has ever been so and will always be.
Everyone should oppose insurrection and favor the rule of law. The Supreme Court will eventually rule on the ballot qualification issue, and when they do I will abide by whatever they decide, whether I agree or not. How about you? If they rule Trump off the ballot will you urge insurrection?
Second, if you're going to rag on the media, at least get it right. Immigration is a frequent news topic. For example, this is from today's Washington Post: US delegation is meeting with Mexico's government for talks on the surge of migrants at the border.
It finally is now, now that they have no choice.
This is just plain false. Immigration has been a constant topic in the news, especially since Trump first said about Mexican immigrants, "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Record new illegal immigration numbers were happening a month ago, until just the past few days, there were no reports on ABC World News Tonight.
Oh, sure, it makes perfect sense that if it isn't mentioned on a half-hour news program then all of mainstream media is ignoring it. Mayor Adams’s Effort to Limit Migrant Buses Faces Obstacles - The New York Times was in today's New York Times, and Justice Dept. Threatens to Sue Texas Over Migrant Arrest Law - The New York Times was in yesterday's. It's been explained to you many times that only a limited amount can fit into a half-hour TV program, but it's like you're immune to rational thought. I don't think you're happy unless you're complaining about something.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2023 8:33 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by marc9000, posted 12-31-2023 5:23 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


(2)
Message 362 of 440 (914150)
12-29-2023 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by marc9000
12-28-2023 8:49 PM


Re: Recent Trump Tweet
marc9000 in Message 357 writes:
Trump writes:
MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS!
I agree 100% that he shouldn't post like this, he should know that the news media would harp on it over and over and over again. He is of course frustrated at all the hate against him, but it's still stupid of him to post like that.
So your explanation is that Trump only says hateful things because he's frustrated that people find him hateful? You want to think that through again?
Biden flies into rages at the White House all the time...
Maybe his management style explains his administration's poor performance.
...(when he's there and not vacationing)...
I think it's hard to determine how much time any president spends on vacation. The White House remains with them wherever they go.
...and when Rashida Tlaib screamed "IMPEACH THE MASSEY FURGUSON" (or some words that start with the same letters) these things get little attention in the mainstream media.
Both the Times and the Post reported this, e.g., Rashida Tlaib’s Expletive-Laden Cry to Impeach Trump Upends Democrats’ Talking Points - The New York Times. Your claims are as false as your attention to topic is poor.
Trump should better handle what he's up against.
Trump proved during his first term that he can't be managed to present a better public face, and he's shown that he can't hide who he really is.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2023 8:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by marc9000, posted 12-31-2023 5:50 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


(6)
Message 363 of 440 (914155)
12-30-2023 8:29 AM


Another Argument for Removing Trump From the Ballot
In a Washington Post opinion piece titled Yes, Trump should be removed from the ballot, Perry Bacon Jr. argues that it should be more than just the 14th Amendment that keeps Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot. Originalist arguments should defer to "our present-day views of what counts as rebellion, insurrection and, more broadly, conduct that is unacceptable for a president." He goes on:
Perry Bacon Jr.:
We don’t live in a democracy if the loser of an election gets to stay in power — and that’s what Trump tried to do. He should never be allowed to be president again.
...
It cannot be a requirement of democracy that you allow the election of leaders who will then end free and fair elections — and therefore democracy itself.
Couldn't have said it better.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


(6)
Message 364 of 440 (914156)
12-30-2023 10:25 AM


Words To Live By
John Dingell was a Democratic representative from the state of Michigan from 1955 until 2015. He died in 2019 and was the longest serving member of Congress in American History.
Debbie Dingell and John Dingell married in 1981. When John announced his retirement in 2014, Debbie Dingell decided to run for his seat. She won the election and has served Michigan's 16th congressional district ever since.
Today an editorial by Debbie Dingell appears in the New York Times: Opinion | Debbie Dingell: Why Standing Up to Trump Is Worth the Pain - The New York Times. Everyone should read it, but here are some extensive excerpts:
Debbie Dingell:
I was married to a great and wise man with whom I shared an incredible love for decades. I miss John every day.
...
Months after his death, when I voted for the first articles of impeachment against President Trump, he launched into a brutal attack saying that John was “looking up” at me (implying he was in hell). That’s the Trump way — the cruelty is the point, yet that awareness doesn’t make it any less painful. We’re human. He knows that, and he thrives on it.
I am not seeking a fight with Mr. Trump. It’s not easy to tangle with him, especially after that experience involving John. But I do know that hateful rhetoric cannot be ignored or become normalized. We have to stand up to bullies in this country, and we have to call out indignities. My bluntness about “rot in hell” being unacceptable was my unfiltered reaction and I stand by it. In my view, the only way you can deal with bullies is to consistently call out their inexcusable behavior and stand in defense of those they choose to target. Trust me, I know it can wear you down — but we can’t grow tired, and we must push back on the hatred when we see it, calling it out, using language everyone understands and in ways that prevent it from seeping into our everyday lives and routines.
Being in Mr. Trump’s tunnel of hate is not enjoyable. Frankly, it’s often frightening. Like many of my colleagues, I have received hostile calls, antagonistic mail and death threats, and I have had people outside my home with weapons. And it reflects the vitriol, bullying, rage and threats we are witnessing across the country today — from our exchanges on social media to dialogue with each other and with those in our workplaces, schools, gathering places, families and communities. It’s a real danger to our democracy and our safety.
When I expressed my thoughts about his Christmas message, Mr. Trump took to Truth Social to go after me once again as a “loser.” Unfortunately, he also brought John into his rant. I can deal with being called names and subjected to the standard venom that we’ve all become familiar with in Mr. Trump’s social media attacks. But when he brings up John, it’s one of the things that hit me hardest. It would be easy to say his words don’t hurt, but they do. And I am sure he knows it.
...
Mr. Trump’s style of politics — the disrespect, prejudice, name-calling and malice that too often get swept aside as his just calling it as he sees it — makes healthy debate and discussion virtually impossible. The word “congress” by definition means coming together. Government shouldn’t be about who can make the most noise; it’s about working together to find solutions. Take it from me: What Mr. Trump is doing isn’t honesty or candor, it’s ruthless and deliberate viciousness.
We can be sure Mr. Trump’s rhetoric will get only more fiery, discordant and divisive over the next year leading up to the election. We’ve already seen the dangerous and deadly consequences his words can have, and we cannot become complacent. This isn’t just about one man. We all face a choice in how we react to bullies, and we all have a responsibility to choose civility in the face of cruelty.
Sorry, I ended up quoting a great deal of it. There was very little I felt I could leave out.
--Percy

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1530
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 365 of 440 (914170)
12-31-2023 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Percy
12-29-2023 8:36 AM


Re: Trump Support Tends Toward the Violent and Undemocratic
But if Colorado Supreme Court rulings are flawed because their justices are appointed,
marc9000 writes:
I'm not saying that's why they are flawed, I don't think any conservative is saying that.

That they're not elected has been your main thing. It's exactly what you were saying.
The word "because" is your word, not mine. I'm saying that this ruling is flawed, and it's more SUSPECT because they're unelected.
You called it undemocratic. Let's see, your precise words from Message 310 were, "Do you believe this action by those 4 unelected judges is a victory for democracy? Is the term 'democracy' being re-defined?"
Yes, that was my question that you never answered. When Democrats want to do certain things, like eliminate the electoral college, legalize abortion and gambling etc., they trumpet the term "democracy" loud and clear. Other times, like getting Trump off the ballot, or imposing science to issue commands about climate change, safety regulations, or dozens of other things, they don't think too much about democracy. Republicans are much more consistent in the use of the term democracy, and how it's supposed to work in a democratic republic.
What you're calling an opinion is actually a fact. It is absolutely true that calling the Colorado justices unelected when they have to face retention elections isn't "entirely accurate."
It's also not entirely accurate to call them elections when they're appointed and then run unopposed. As it's not entirely accurate to call Kim Jong Un or Vladimir Putin "elected." And it's not entirely accurate when Democrats call Republicans "wrong", when Republicans point out the fact that the Colorado Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected as most people in the U.S. think of the term.
You've never heard of running unopposed, then.
I've heard of it, I just don't think of it as being much of an election. As don't millions of other U.S. residents.
The disagreement is over your characterization of them as undemocratic. They're not. The justices are appointed by an elected representative of the people, and later they directly face the electorate in retainment elections. In red states as well as blue states.
That's the disagreement all right. It's a system that works sometimes, and sometimes it doesn't work very well. In this case, we see it can be a significant tool for presidential election interference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Percy, posted 12-29-2023 8:36 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Percy, posted 01-01-2024 11:53 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1530
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 366 of 440 (914172)
12-31-2023 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Theodoric
12-29-2023 3:05 PM


Re: Insurrection and the 14th amendment
Jefferson Davis never brandished weapons.
Jefferson Davis never sought any political office after the Confederacy, was never charged under the 14th amendment. He was tried for a few other things, but was never convicted. Maybe he got some respect for being a "president", unlike Trump.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Theodoric, posted 12-29-2023 3:05 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Theodoric, posted 12-31-2023 6:44 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 372 by Percy, posted 01-01-2024 12:39 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1530
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 367 of 440 (914173)
12-31-2023 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Percy
12-29-2023 8:03 PM


Re: Trump Support Tends Toward the Violent and Undemocratic
When do you think the transfer of power begins?
January 20th.
Yes, agreed. Trump was and is exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech as he foments distrust in a key democratic institution of the United States. He's actively undermining our faith that our elections are free and fair.
This is a new age of electronics. The U.S. / the world is still coming to terms with it, largely in the same way the world was coming to terms with gasoline powered cars 100 years ago. Mud roads, bad / unavailable gasoline, it was a mess, but it happened fast, just like electronics is changing (improving?) fast today. Much easier for today's vote counting to be corrupted by only a few people. It needs to be watched carefully from ALL possible corners.
Reintroducing cruel punishments like death is very alarming.
The U.S. founders addressed "cruel and unusual" punishments, at a time when the hanging of horse thieves was not unusual. There are a LOT of cruel and unusual crimes. The left/right divide over capitol punishment is an old one.
Well there's a spurious argument if ever there was one. Perhaps you can describe where the Constitution gives Congress the right to authorize expenditures for going to the moon, for transportation, for agriculture, or for innumerable other things that they authorize expenditures for.
Going to the moon, nope, not without the consent of the states, or the people. Transportation? "to establish post offices and post roads", that would be a yes. A mandatory government retirement program (Social Security, which is going broke) no, not without the consent of the states or the people. I wasn't around in the 1930's, but I suspect the people weren't consulted about it. A national 55 mph speed limit? I WAS around in 1973, the people weren't consulted. The only way to consult the people is with an ISSUE vote. Not the guesses of Congress what the people's opinion is. But yes, the 10th amendment has been violated over and over and over and over again for the past 90 years at least. That doesn't mean it's not being violated.
But regarding the actual point I made, reducing health care subsidies is alarming because it reduces the overall health of the nation. Perhaps you've seen the recent news about falling U.S. lifespans and the decreases in average height. These measures reflect on the nation's health, and it's growing worse.
Then rather than growing the government, enriching itself and several other special interests, maybe the states or the people could be properly consulted about it.
So you agree that those are among our cherished democratic institutions? Do you now understand what democratic institutions are, and that they definitely aren't the things you listed before?
I understand that those on the left can switch them around. Many on the left think of the EPA, or NASA as democratic institutions. I suspect that your definition of what democratic institutions are would clash with the opinions of others on the left.
You should take your "mainstream media" complaints to a thread where they'd be on topic.
marc9000 writes:
I know you invited me to start a thread on that, but I wouldn't know where to start. Especially since every one of the dozen or so opponents I would get would pretend that they know nothing about mainstream media bias. I'm not going to attempt to help them.

It's still off-topic. If you don't believe a case can be made for your claim then don't make it.
I've already made an undisputable case for it throughout this thread, and it has a lot to do with this thread's topic. But I've covered the basics, nothing more to say here, unless somebody else goads me into it.
Welcoming immigrants increases the wealth of the country because the number of people working and contributing increases.
A small number of them do, many companies with Democrat leadership love to exploit them. But most of them are idle and uneducated.
Everyone should oppose insurrection and favor the rule of law. The Supreme Court will eventually rule on the ballot qualification issue, and when they do I will abide by whatever they decide, whether I agree or not. How about you? If they rule Trump off the ballot will you urge insurrection?
I'd have to wait and see if they then rule Biden off the ballot by other states, for allowing an invasion of the southern border. I fully trust their ruling will work both ways. These actions by a few people in Colorado and now Maine are just stunts, a few people looking for their 15 minutes of fame, I don't think much of anything will come of it. A Fox News contributor (a week or so ago) said that;
quote:
Oh, by the way, if the insurrection disqualification were ever upheld, then Colorado Republicans will change their bylaws and move to a caucus system, which will then nominate Trump. They are a commonsense bunch and, of course, Joe Biden chimed in today to say Trump supported insurrection.
LARRY KUDLOW: Democrats refuse medications for their Trump Derangement Syndrome
I'm not much interested in all those details. Those (so far) 5 people will get their death threats, and their book deal offers, and it will all be forgotten before long.
Oh, sure, it makes perfect sense that if it isn't mentioned on a half-hour news program then all of mainstream media is ignoring it. Mayor Adams’s Effort to Limit Migrant Buses Faces Obstacles - The New York Times was in today's New York Times, and Justice Dept. Threatens to Sue Texas Over Migrant Arrest Law - The New York Times was in yesterday's. It's been explained to you many times that only a limited amount can fit into a half-hour TV program, but it's like you're immune to rational thought. I don't think you're happy unless you're complaining about something.
Those half-hour news programs are VERY influential, largely because they're blended with local news and weather. They manage to fit a lot of fluff into those half-hour programs. Any small event in any local area that benefits liberalism. White on black crimes, NEVER black on white crimes, as one example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Percy, posted 12-29-2023 8:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Percy, posted 01-01-2024 3:11 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1530
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 368 of 440 (914174)
12-31-2023 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Percy
12-29-2023 8:36 PM


Re: Recent Trump Tweet
So your explanation is that Trump only says hateful things because he's frustrated that people find him hateful? You want to think that through again?
Trump says a lot of things, a lot of them are common sense things that the news media covers up. (whoops, sorry) He's frustrated not because he's hateful, but because he's been the most unfairly treated ex-president in the history of the country.
Richard Nixon was ragged on pretty good for 4 or so years after he resigned, but that was pretty much it. Most Democrats resented Gerald Ford being an unelected president. But once Carter was elected, Ford was forgotten. When Reagan was elected, Carter was forgotten. When Bush 41 was elected, Reagan was forgotten. When Clinton was elected, Bush 41 was forgotten. When Bush 43 was elected, Clinton was forgotten. When Obama was elected, Bush 43 was forgotten. When Trump was elected, Obama was forgotten. All forgotten when it came to criticism, but sometimes remembered fondly. When Biden was elected, TRUMP WAS HATED IN THE NEWS, criticized and reported on at least 10 TIMES more than Biden!
It's so hilarious, if the news media would have dropped the Trump subject in the same way they dropped all ex-presidents of the past, Trump would be largely forgotten, and he wouldn't have the support he has! He has that support because so many people see how unfairly he's been treated! Ron Desantis is a typical presidential candidate, on the same order of past presidents like Obama, Bush 43, Bill Clinton. About the same as them in age, looks, family man status, and relative obscurity nationally before announcing his candidacy for president. I think a LOT of people across the country are tired of BOTH old men, with plenty of baggage in their past. Desantis, and probably some much younger Democrat would be running away with popularity by now, and Trump would be as obscure by now as Gerald Ford was in 1979.
Trump proved during his first term that he can't be managed to present a better public face, and he's shown that he can't hide who he really is.
A lot of people like who he really is - he's no quitter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Percy, posted 12-29-2023 8:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by nwr, posted 12-31-2023 7:26 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 374 by Percy, posted 01-01-2024 3:52 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9489
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 6.3


(2)
Message 369 of 440 (914175)
12-31-2023 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by marc9000
12-31-2023 4:19 PM


Re: Insurrection and the 14th amendment
Davis was charged with treason. The only reason he was not tried and convicted was because there was a general amnesty.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by marc9000, posted 12-31-2023 4:19 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6484
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(3)
Message 370 of 440 (914176)
12-31-2023 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by marc9000
12-31-2023 5:50 PM


Re: Recent Trump Tweet
You must be wearing blinders.
Trump says and does outrageous things because he wants press coverage. That's his MO.
Yes, the press is biased. You see it as a left-wing bias, but it isn't that at all. I suspect that most people on the left would prefer it if Trump were largely ignored. The media have a bias toward entertainment values, and Trump is quite skillful at manipulating the press.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by marc9000, posted 12-31-2023 5:50 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


(1)
Message 371 of 440 (914181)
01-01-2024 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by marc9000
12-31-2023 4:15 PM


Re: Trump Support Tends Toward the Violent and Undemocratic
marc9000 in Message 365 writes:
But if Colorado Supreme Court rulings are flawed because their justices are appointed,
marc9000 writes:
I'm not saying that's why they are flawed, I don't think any conservative is saying that.

That they're not elected has been your main thing. It's exactly what you were saying.
The word "because" is your word, not mine. I'm saying that this ruling is flawed, and it's more SUSPECT because they're unelected.
That almost doesn't even achieve the level of bad reasoning. If this Colorado SC decision is more suspect because they're unelected, then all their other decisions are equally more suspect since they were still equally unelected. Except that they're not unelected.
You called it undemocratic. Let's see, your precise words from Message 310 were, "Do you believe this action by those 4 unelected judges is a victory for democracy? Is the term 'democracy' being re-defined?"
Yes, that was my question that you never answered.
Ah, there's the old Marc tactic of deflection. Attack instead of defend, and don't be bothered whether anything you say is true. Not even you believe you on this one. I've answered nine ways from Sunday and you ignore it every time.
When Democrats want to do certain things, like eliminate the electoral college, legalize abortion and gambling etc., they trumpet the term "democracy" loud and clear.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up the bus there, Charlie. Your reasoning is getting worse and worse. Eliminating the electoral college would make presidents directly elected by the people, which is the very thing you want for the Colorado SC.
What we're all witnessing here is you changing your definition of democracy according to party. If the Democrats want to do something, doesn't matter what it is, you'll call it undemocratic. If the Republicans want to do something, doesn't matter what it is, you'll call it democratic. What you call democracy has nothing to do with the actual definition of the word. For you whatever Republicans do is democratic, and whatever Democrats do is anti-democratic.
Other times, like getting Trump off the ballot, or imposing science to issue commands about climate change, safety regulations, or dozens of other things, they don't think too much about democracy. Republicans are much more consistent in the use of the term democracy, and how it's supposed to work in a democratic republic.
There are relevant comparisons that can be drawn if you're interested. Take abortion. The Ohio Supreme Court with 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats dismissed the state's appeal to enforce a near total abortion ban, and they're elected. The Texas SC, all Republican and also elected, blocked an order allowing abortion. The Indiana SC, all five justices appointed by Republicans governors, upheld an abortion ban. The Iowa SC, all seven members appointed by Republican governors, have upheld a fundamental right to abortion. Some of these are still active cases under appeal.
The evidence suggests that rulings are all over the place. Red SC's rule both for you and against you, independent of whether they're elected or appointed.
The reason roughly half the states appoint their justices and half elect them is the tension that exists between making justice reflect electorate while at the same time insuring their independence.
What you're calling an opinion is actually a fact. It is absolutely true that calling the Colorado justices unelected when they have to face retention elections isn't "entirely accurate."
It's also not entirely accurate to call them elections when they're appointed and then run unopposed.
Read the sentence again. What it says is that it isn't "entirely accurate" to call someone unelected who is appointed and then faces a retainment election. Just as it wouldn't be "entirely accurate" for me to tell you I'm giving you a stack of pancakes for breakfast without telling you they're vegan.
As it's not entirely accurate to call Kim Jong Un or Vladimir Putin "elected." And it's not entirely accurate when Democrats call Republicans "wrong", when Republicans point out the fact that the Colorado Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected as most people in the U.S. think of the term.
Once again what you say is entirely untrue. Go back and look at my chart in Message 322. About half the state SC are appointed, half elected. About half are blue and half are red. Both appointed and elected courts make rulings you don't like. Your characterization of the Colorado ruling as undemocratic because they are apointed then later face retainment elections actually looks like a post facto rationalization that does not hold water.
You've never heard of running unopposed, then.
I've heard of it, I just don't think of it as being much of an election. As don't millions of other U.S. residents.
So when a Republican runs unopposed, their election is suspect. and only because the other party chose not to run anyone, likely because the outcome was a foregone conclusion. You're calling someone suspect who is actually so successful no one wastes time and effort running against him. Care to rethnk your rationale?
The disagreement is over your characterization of them as undemocratic. They're not. The justices are appointed by an elected representative of the people, and later they directly face the electorate in retainment elections. In red states as well as blue states.
That's the disagreement all right. It's a system that works sometimes, and sometimes it doesn't work very well. In this case, we see it can be a significant tool for presidential election interference.
Except that we've dispensed with all your objections one by one. Appointing justices is not undemocratic, and both appointed SC's and elected SC's are as likely to rule for you as against you. You don't have an argument.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by marc9000, posted 12-31-2023 4:15 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by marc9000, posted 01-01-2024 8:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


(3)
Message 372 of 440 (914182)
01-01-2024 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by marc9000
12-31-2023 4:19 PM


Re: Insurrection and the 14th amendment
marc9000 in Message 366 writes:
Jefferson Davis never sought any political office after the Confederacy, was never charged under the 14th amendment. He was tried for a few other things, but was never convicted.
Davis was never tried for anything. He was indicted for treason, and if convicted he would have been disqalified from future office by the 14th amendment. He spent two years in prison awaiting trial, then managed to post bail. He remained under indictment until granted amnesty on Christmas 1868.
There were many Confederates who initially sought office in the United States government and requested amnesty for their Section 3 disqualifications, showing that they understand there was no need for an adjudication process to determine they'd engaged in insurrection. Only 8 officials were ruled disqualified, but there were thousands more who didn't complete the process because they could see it would end in disqualification. Disqualifications were under the 14th amendment.
It is informing to learn that two of those disqualified, Kenneth Worthy and Couy Griffin, were disqualified for knowingly and voluntarily aiding violent insurrections while having engaged in no violence themselves. So much for your definitional claim that the insurrection must include violence in a single place.
But these are all just technicalities. Whether the 14th amendment exists or not, even whether the constitution exists or not, we know that what Trump did was wrong. He had people construct false elector slates, he pressured Pence to confirm false slat4es, he pressured state attorneys general to manipulate vote counts, and he incited people to go to the capitol and fight like hell.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by marc9000, posted 12-31-2023 4:19 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


(2)
Message 373 of 440 (914185)
01-01-2024 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by marc9000
12-31-2023 5:23 PM


Re: Trump Support Tends Toward the Violent and Undemocratic
When do you think the transfer of power begins?
January 20th.
That's just inauguration day, the day when the next president is sworn into office. It is the final part of the process.
The transfer of power begins during election day as ballots are gathered and begin to be counted. It is peaceful when election stations are not closed or made otherwise unavailable or turn people away or attack people or intimidate them. It continues peaceful as ballot officials count the ballots while under observation. Revealing private information about ballot officials in order to subject them to venomous attacks and threats thereby disrupting their lives and forcing them into hiding is not peaceful.
It continues with the current occupant of the White House, if he is not also the future occupant, making plans to transition government from his administration to the next, and as a practical matter for removing all personal items from the White House. Pretending they'd won the election, the Trump administration was not ready to move when it came time to vacate. There were no department guides explaining current processes and projects. The entire process was rushed and chaotic.
It further continues with a Joint Congressional Session at the Capitol to certify the slates of electors from the states led by vice-president. It's peaceful when the capitol is not breached by violent protestors who force lawmakers to flee for their safety.
The inauguration is the final stop in the process of the transfer of power. If there is not attack or disruption during this process then it is peaceful.
The transfer of power from Trump to Biden was not peaceful because election workers became the object of threats and harassment.
It was also not peaceful because of the violent breech of the capitol on January 6th that halted the certification of the electoral votes.
Yes, agreed. Trump was and is exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech as he foments distrust in a key democratic institution of the United States. He's actively undermining our faith that our elections are free and fair.
Much easier for today's vote counting to be corrupted by only a few people.
And yet the 2020 election was judged the most free and fair in our history. Not one of the 61 cases brought by Rudy Giuliani identified any election fraud. He lost 60 of the 61 cases. The case he won was about election observers being able to get closer to ballot workers.
It needs to be watched carefully from ALL possible corners.
If you're going to keep crying "corruption" year after year, it kind of helps your credibility if you occasionally find some. Isolated cases of election fraud have been identified here and there, but nothing remotely near enough to affect the outcome of an election, and usually committed by Republicans anyway.
Reintroducing cruel punishments like death is very alarming.
The U.S. founders addressed "cruel and unusual" punishments, at a time when the hanging of horse thieves was not unusual. There are a LOT of cruel and unusual crimes. The left/right divide over capitol punishment is an old one.
Most people have an easy time deciding whether "cruel and unusual" should be interpreted by an 18th century context or a 21st century context. People were still being drawn and quartered back in the 18th century, you know, but the Federal method of execution for much of the Republic was hanging. Obviously by 18th century standards hanging was not considered cruiel and unusual, and now it is. A strictly originalist interpretation of the Constitution just doesn't stand up because human decency keeps getting in the way.
marc9000 in Message 356 writes:
Percy in Message 361 writes:
Reduced health care subsidies.

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that gives congress the authority to expend, on objects of health care, the money of its constituents.
Well there's a spurious argument if ever there was one. Perhaps you can describe where the Constitution gives Congress the right to authorize expenditures for going to the moon, for transportation, for agriculture, or for innumerable other things that they authorize expenditures for.
In the quote above I included the parts you left out to give your answer context. You had said nothing gives Congress the right to authorize expenditure on health care, and I pointed out that there's also nothing in the Constitution authorizing expenditures for going to the moon, for transportation, for agriculture, or for innumerable other things that they authorize expenditures for.
You answer in an odd way.
Going to the moon, nope, not without the consent of the states, or the people.
So you're against the space program?
Transportation? "to establish post offices and post roads", that would be a yes.
No. Post offices and roads have a section in the Constitution. Transportation as in highways, bridges, railways is not covered in the Constitution. So you're against the national highway system, the AmTrak railway system, and so forth?
A mandatory government retirement program (Social Security, which is going broke) no, not without the consent of the states or the people. I wasn't around in the 1930's, but I suspect the people weren't consulted about it.
Again, we live in a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. In our system you vote for your representatives and they act for you.
A national 55 mph speed limit? I WAS around in 1973, the people weren't consulted.
Same answer. How long are you going to be this dunderheaded? Pretending idiocy isn't a good strategy.
The only way to consult the people is with an ISSUE vote.
Again, we live in a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. You get to vote for your representatives in the House and Senare, and for the President. That's it. The issues that come up are handled by our government representatives across the three branches of government There are some other circumstance where you might have an opportunity to vote at the Federal level during your lifetime, such as at a state convention for ratifying a Constitutional amendment.
Not the guesses of Congress what the people's opinion is. But yes, the 10th amendment has been violated over and over and over and over again for the past 90 years at least. That doesn't mean it's not being violated.
So you think that when the Federal Government builds roads and bridges that they're violating the 10th amendment? How about the NHTSA and the NTSB?
But regarding the actual point I made, reducing health care subsidies is alarming because it reduces the overall health of the nation. Perhaps you've seen the recent news about falling U.S. lifespans and the decreases in average height. These measures reflect on the nation's health, and it's growing worse.
Then rather than growing the government, enriching itself and several other special interests, maybe the states or the people could be properly consulted about it.
Once you get a misapprehension in your head you really stick with it. Get this through your head. We live in a representative democracy. Even if the Republicans were in charge of every branch of the federal government, had every seat in the House and Senate, with both the president and vice-president Republicans, we would still have a representative democracy. You still wouldn't be able to cast individual votes for roads, bridges, trains, space missions, health care, and so on.
So you agree that those are among our cherished democratic institutions? Do you now understand what democratic institutions are, and that they definitely aren't the things you listed before?
I understand that those on the left can switch them around. Many on the left think of the EPA, or NASA as democratic institutions.
The EPA and NASA are government agencies, not democratic institutions.
I suspect that your definition of what democratic institutions are would clash with the opinions of others on the left.
Let's run it up the flagpole and see who objects. These are what I think of as our democratic institutions:
  1. Free and fair elections where every citizen of voting age can vote
  2. Representative government
  3. Balance of powers between the three branches.
  4. Peaceful transfer of power
  5. Majority rule, but not majority tyranny
  6. A fair justice system with equality under the law
  7. Free expression of ideas
  8. Universal education
You should take your "mainstream media" complaints to a thread where they'd be on topic.
marc9000 writes:
I know you invited me to start a thread on that, but I wouldn't know where to start. Especially since every one of the dozen or so opponents I would get would pretend that they know nothing about mainstream media bias. I'm not going to attempt to help them.

It's still off-topic. If you don't believe a case can be made for your claim then don't make it.
I've already made an indisputable case for it throughout this thread, and it has a lot to do with this thread's topic. But I've covered the basics, nothing more to say here, unless somebody else goads me into it.
Really? You think you've made an indisputable case that the mainstream media is ignoring major issues. This is right out the Trump playbook. Throw out some uninterpretable word salad and claim it settles the argument. What you've said so far barely qualifies as English, let alone an "indisputable case". But please, if you decide to make that "indisputable case" then do it in another thread where it would be on topic.
Welcoming immigrants increases the wealth of the country because the number of people working and contributing increases.
A small number of them do, many companies with Democrat leadership love to exploit them. But most of them are idle and uneducated.
Statistics clearly show that the 2nd generation of immigrants tend to become part of American culture and engage in it economically. Meanwhile the 1st generation does jobs Americans tend not to want, such as cleaning homes, picking crops, etc.
Everyone should oppose insurrection and favor the rule of law. The Supreme Court will eventually rule on the ballot qualification issue, and when they do I will abide by whatever they decide, whether I agree or not. How about you? If they rule Trump off the ballot will you urge insurrection?
I'd have to wait and see if they then rule Biden off the ballot by other states, for allowing an invasion of the southern border.
This says you're looking for tit-for-tat, not justice.
Oh, sure, it makes perfect sense that if it isn't mentioned on a half-hour news program then all of mainstream media is ignoring it. Mayor Adams’s Effort to Limit Migrant Buses Faces Obstacles - The New York Times was in today's New York Times, and Justice Dept. Threatens to Sue Texas Over Migrant Arrest Law - The New York Times was in yesterday's. It's been explained to you many times that only a limited amount can fit into a half-hour TV program, but it's like you're immune to rational thought. I don't think you're happy unless you're complaining about something.
[Have you ever heard of peek mode?]
Those half-hour news programs are VERY influential, largely because they're blended with local news and weather. They manage to fit a lot of fluff into those half-hour programs. Any small event in any local area that benefits liberalism. White on black crimes, NEVER black on white crimes, as one example.
I think you've already destroyed any vestiges of hope that yours might be objective observations. Do you have concrete data rather than your unsupported claims.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by marc9000, posted 12-31-2023 5:23 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by marc9000, posted 01-01-2024 8:40 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


(2)
Message 374 of 440 (914187)
01-01-2024 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by marc9000
12-31-2023 5:50 PM


Re: Recent Trump Tweet
marc9000 in Message 368 writes:
So your explanation is that Trump only says hateful things because he's frustrated that people find him hateful? You want to think that through again?
Trump says a lot of things, a lot of them are common sense things that the news media covers up. (whoops, sorry) He's frustrated not because he's hateful, but because he's been the most unfairly treated ex-president in the history of the country.
You're changing your story. It's amazing how cavalierly you discard one failed argument and move on to the next.
You said Trump says hateful things because he's so frustrated that people find him hateful. I think many people find that people's true nature comes out when they're frustrated or angry or hurt or embarrassed and so forth.
Richard Nixon was ragged on pretty good for 4 or so years after he resigned, but that was pretty much it. Most Democrats resented Gerald Ford being an unelected president. But once Carter was elected, Ford was forgotten. When Reagan was elected, Carter was forgotten. When Bush 41 was elected, Reagan was forgotten. When Clinton was elected, Bush 41 was forgotten. When Bush 43 was elected, Clinton was forgotten. When Obama was elected, Bush 43 was forgotten. When Trump was elected, Obama was forgotten. All forgotten when it came to criticism, but sometimes remembered fondly. When Biden was elected, TRUMP WAS HATED IN THE NEWS, criticized and reported on at least 10 TIMES more than Biden!
This sounds like Matthew 1: Nixon begat Ford; Ford begat Carter who forgot him; Carter begat Reagan who forgot him; Reagan begat Bush who forgot him; etc...
It's so hilarious,...
Oh, yeah, we're just laughing so hard we cant' keep our eyes dry.
...if the news media would have dropped the Trump subject in the same way they dropped all ex-presidents of the past, Trump would be largely forgotten, and he wouldn't have the support he has!
It's possible Trump might have faded away (though I doubt it) if this hadn't happened:
He has that support because so many people see how unfairly he's been treated!
He's been treated better than any insurrectionist in history. His political career is based upon claims of unfair treatment. You're one of the rubes.
Trump proved during his first term that he can't be managed to present a better public face, and he's shown that he can't hide who he really is.
A lot of people like who he really is - he's no quitter.
He's venal and viscious, and you're right, he's no quitter about it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by marc9000, posted 12-31-2023 5:50 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1530
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 375 of 440 (914192)
01-01-2024 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Percy
01-01-2024 11:53 AM


Re: Trump Support Tends Toward the Violent and Undemocratic
Except that we've dispensed with all your objections one by one. Appointing justices is not undemocratic, and both appointed SC's and elected SC's are as likely to rule for you as against you. You don't have an argument.
(marc9000 has seen this message, has laughed, but has not replied.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Percy, posted 01-01-2024 11:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Percy, posted 01-02-2024 8:37 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024