Charlottesville

[moda0306]

Desert,

I wish I could temporarily rewind history and make Kanye West president for no other reason than to watch many of the same Trump supporters and apologists warning of "mass hysteria" lose their f'ing minds... as half the states secede from the Union over someone who is a "lefty" version of Trump but with fewer ex-wives and who actually built his name/fortune from nothing rather than daddy's money.

Of course, like any rational adult with a degree of self-respect, I would never actually support such a buffoon. It would just be fun to watch for a few months, before I enact my TRUE alternate history, which arrests all previous presidents and collaborators for war crimes, and installs Dan Carlin as benevolent dictator of the U.S.

[moda0306]

Scott Adams is a joke.

Yes. He needs to stick to his comic strip.

Early on in Trump's candidacy when I was actually a fan, I thought Adams provided an interesting perspective that I hadn't considered before. Around October or so, though, based on his unrelenting defense of all things Trump, I believe I decided something along the lines of what moda wrote:

he's just a dim-wit trying to profit off of a prediction and some loose knowledge of persuasion

Perhaps dimwit is a bit harsh. But after this article and his last podcast with Sam Harris I was thoroughly unimpressed.

As a civil libertarian, the best defense I've heard of Trump is that he simply wears all of his awfulness on his sleeve rather than under a guise of smooth talk and "presidential" posture.

I'd add that getting people to start questioning trade deals is a plus. Even if he does so in bombastic ways.

[Maddy]

Once again I find myself coming to the defense of the institution, and of the process that puts presidents in place. Personally, I have no love for Trump (although I find myself agreeing with a good number of his policies) and would much prefer to have Pence at the helm. But when I think of the enormous precedent-setting consequences that would attend impeachment, assassination, forced resignation, or any of the other possibilities that have been floated by the malcontented Left--none of which have any legal basis and all of which represent an affront to to our very system of government--I feel strongly that it is important for me to support Trump for one reason only: to preserve the integrity of the institution and to insure that the process which put him in office remains inviolate.

[moda0306]

Once again I find myself coming to the defense of the institution, and of the process that puts presidents in place. Personally, I have no love for Trump (although I find myself agreeing with a good number of his policies) and would much prefer to have Pence at the helm. But when I think of the enormous precedent-setting consequences that would attend impeachment, assassination, forced resignation, or any of the other possibilities that have been floated by the malcontented Left--none of which have any legal basis and all of which represent an affront to to our very system of government--I feel strongly that it is important for me to support Trump for one reason only: to preserve the integrity of the institution and to insure that the process which put him in office remains inviolate.

So what about when the executive branch ignores the rule of law... isn't that far-more dangerous than congress doing it against the president? Or are there simply some laws and institutions you care about far more than others?

Do you consider the permanent war-time surveillance state to be "Legal?"

Do you consider congress' abdication of their war declaration duties to be dangerous?

Do you consider the US to have committed any war crimes over the past 70 years?

[moda0306]

Maddy,

What do you think of the legality & precedents set by Teddy Roosevelt? How about Harry Truman?

Or the legality of the Bush admins execution of the war on terror?

Sorry to pepper you with questions. I just know you have a deep legal background and strong opinions and I just wanted to pierce some issues we don't seem to hit on in debate but carry important implications to how we think about the presidency or the rule of law.

[moda0306]

Desert,

I wish I could temporarily rewind history and make Kanye West president for no other reason than to watch many of the same Trump supporters and apologists warning of "mass hysteria" lose their f'ing minds... as half the states secede from the Union over someone who is a "lefty" version of Trump but with fewer ex-wives and who actually built his name/fortune from nothing rather than daddy's money.

Of course, like any rational adult with a degree of self-respect, I would never actually support such a buffoon. It would just be fun to watch for a few months, before I enact my TRUE alternate history, which arrests all previous presidents and collaborators for war crimes, and installs Dan Carlin as benevolent dictator of the U.S.

I like that idea! I just looked up Mr. West, and discovered that he is, in fact, planning to run in 2020. I am so out of touch ... I had no idea he was planning to run. He couldn't be worse than Trump. He also uses only the best words:

"Sweatshirts are (bleeping) important. That might sound like the funniest quote ever. How can you say all this stuff about running for president in 2020 and then say sweatshirts are important? But they are. Just mark my words. Mark my words like Mark Twain."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/ent ... /72732996/

Yes, mark his words like Mark Twain. Bitch. (sorry, just trying to find my Kanye groove).

I give Texas -3 months into his presidency to secede.

[Maddy]

[duplicate post]

[Maddy]

So what about when the executive branch ignores the rule of law... isn't that far-more dangerous than congress doing it against the president? Or are there simply some laws and institutions you care about far more than others?

We've had the executive ignoring the law in very flagrant fashion since the beginning of the Bush presidency, and it was going on in more subtle form long before that. It was the defining feature of the Obama administration, and throughout that eight years I was constantly saying (as did others) that a very dangerous precedent was being set. In my view, it was both ignorant and short-sighted for the Left to assume--as they apparently did--that the law didn't matter because they--who naturally had right on their side--would always be in power.

But let's be honest, Moda, you haven't exactly been a defender of the rule of law on this forum, and in fact you've stated your view that it is a "sham." So why the sudden concern about the integrity of the law and the institutions of government? Why weren't you singing the same tune during the eight years of the Obama administration?

Do you consider the permanent war-time surveillance state to be "Legal?"

Absolutely not. The Patriot Act was one of the most horrific, unconstitutional affronts to individual liberties that this country has ever seen. You and I have no quarrel on this point. But again, where was the outrage of the Left during the Obama administration, when the Patriot Act and related affronts to individual liberties were taken to new heights?

Do you consider congress' abdication of their war declaration duties to be dangerous?

Again, no disagreement from me.

Do you consider the US to have committed any war crimes over the past 70 years?

More than I care to think about. By the way, I share your regard for Noam Chomsky's analysis. However, I think he has it wrong when he attributes the crimes of the corporate elite to American hegemony. The corporate elite is a transnational creature. America could cease to exist, and these people and entities would go on like nothing ever happened. They've simply hijacked the Pentagon and infiltrated the offices of government and are using them to further their own agenda. Significantly, Trump may be one of the few players in Washington who hasn't been thoroughly co-opted by the beast.

By the way, have you ever listened to Craig Hulet's podcasts? You might find him interesting. Very Chomsky-esque, but with some unique viewpoints.

[moda0306]

So what about when the executive branch ignores the rule of law... isn't that far-more dangerous than congress doing it against the president? Or are there simply some laws and institutions you care about far more than others?

We've had the executive ignoring the law in very flagrant fashion since the beginning of the Bush presidency, and it was going on long before that. It was the defining feature of the Obama administration, and throughout that eight years I was constantly saying (as did others) that a very dangerous precedent was being set. In my view, it was both ignorant and short-sighted for the Left to assume--as they apparently did--that the law didn't matter because they--who naturally had right on their side--would always be in power.

But let's be honest, Moda, you haven't exactly been a defender of the rule of law on this forum, and in fact you've stated your view that it is a "sham." So why the sudden concern about the integrity of the law and the institutions of government? Why weren't you singing the same tune during the eight years of the Obama administration?

Do you consider the permanent war-time surveillance state to be "Legal?"

Absolutely not. The Patriot Act was one of the most horrific, unconstitutional affronts to individual liberties that we've ever seen. You and I have no quarrel on this point. But again, where was the outrage of the Left during the Obama administration, when the Patriot Act and related affronts to individual liberties were taken to new heights?

Do you consider congress' abdication of their war declaration duties to be dangerous?

Again, no disagreement from me.

Do you consider the US to have committed any war crimes over the past 70 years?

More than I care to think about. By the way, I share your regard for Noam Chomsky's analysis. However, I think he has it wrong when he attributes the crimes of the corporate elite to American nationalism. The corporate elite is a transnational creature. America could cease to exist, and these people and entities would go on like nothing ever happened. The key, I believe, is that the corporate elite has hijacked the Pentagon and is using it for its own purposes. Significantly, Trump may be one of the few players in Washington who hasn't been thoroughly co-opted by the beast.[/quote]

I should be clear... I am absolutely in favor of the rule of law being applied first, foremost and firmly against agents of the state. They are the ones with the most political power, and they use the rule of law to justify organized force, often deadly and actual rather than simply the THREAT of force, against others.

[Maddy]

Once again I find myself coming to the defense of the institution, and of the process that puts presidents in place.

I don't think you are being honest with yourself here. Like those you loathe, you seem all-too-eager to jettison this principle when it suits your desires:

If Trump really wants to ban transgender people from military service (and I have no idea if he has the power to do this or not), then give a real directive to specific people with guidance on how to carry it out. To my knowledge, he has not done so. To me, this is the mark of a weak leader and feeble man.

I guess you and I made two different assumptions about whether an actual order had been given. But aren't you parsing it a bit thinly regardless? Having worked for many years in an office for either a boss or a hierarchy of bosses, I can say with assuredness that had I intentionally contravened a superior's clear statement of policy--or even an expression of preference--on grounds that I had received no actual directive, it would have been viewed as a serious instance of insubordination.

You've unfairly taken that comment entirely out of context. The issue I was addressing had nothing to do with the legality of Trump's order (or his expressly stated policy, if there was no actual order). To the contrary, I was simply pointing out that there are many varieties of insubordination, and that for an employee to publicly contravene a clear policy directive of a superior would get you canned anywhere in the private sector.

You know, you could go back through my posts with a fine-toothed comb and probably find a number of instances where I've contradicted myself. Half the time these days I'm operating on brain farts, and I'm sure my writing could often be clearer. But on the subject of the rule of law, you're going to have to look really hard to find anything suggesting that I'm just blowing smoke up your skirts, since it's an issue I take very seriously.

[Maddy]

The Patriot Act was one of the most horrific, unconstitutional affronts to individual liberties that we've ever seen. You and I have no quarrel on this point. But again, where was the outrage of the Left during the Obama administration, when the Patriot Act and related affronts to individual liberties were taken to new heights?

It went exactly the same place that the outrage on the right for "nation building" went when George W. Bush led the U.S. into Iraq. . .

There's been plenty of outrage by those citizens who were savvy enough to see beyond the elaborately woven false narrative that became the pretext for this country's invasion of Iraq. And the rest? It wasn't that they didn't care or were proponents of nation-building. They simply didn't know they were being fed a lie. To this day, those of us who talk about the relationship between 911, Saudi Arabia, the Invasion of Iraq, and the larger plan described by General Wesley Clark to achieve regime change in seven specific countries, are derided as conspiracy theorists.

It can't be denied that the players in Washington, both left and right, have historically been guilty of ignoring the law when it suits their own purposes. What's significant about the last election, however, is that the majority of workaday conservatives declared their repugnance for the "swamp" and resoundingly rejected the Republican establishment that presumed to represent them. I have yet to see a comparable statement from the Left.

[stuper1]

Once again I find myself coming to the defense of the institution, and of the process that puts presidents in place. Personally, I have no love for Trump (although I find myself agreeing with a good number of his policies) and would much prefer to have Pence at the helm. But when I think of the enormous precedent-setting consequences that would attend impeachment, assassination, forced resignation, or any of the other possibilities that have been floated by the malcontented Left--none of which have any legal basis and all of which represent an affront to to our very system of government--I feel strongly that it is important for me to support Trump for one reason only: to preserve the integrity of the institution and to insure that the process which put him in office remains inviolate.

I love this post. I also have no love for a blowhard like Trump. But I do have sympathy for the masses of "little people" who supported him because they no longer can get a good job in this country, in large part due to insane immigration policies over the last few decades. So, another reason to support Trump is to hopefully give a continued voice to those people and to oppose big-business-corporate-media which seems to be trying to bring Trump down by any means possible.

Having said all that, it still remains to be seen whether Trump will actually do much on immigration, although an acquaintance of mine who works for ICE says that immigration enforcement at least is much stronger now than it was under Obama.

[drumminj]

I also have no love for a blowhard like Trump. But I do have sympathy for the masses of "little people" who supported him because they no longer can get a good job in this country, in large part due to insane immigration policies over the last few decades. So, another reason to support Trump is to hopefully give a continued voice to those people and to oppose big-business-corporate-media which seems to be trying to bring Trump down by any means possible.

It struck me the other day how quick people are to try to vilify, demean, and undermine President Trump, and in the process are totally willing to completely disenfranchise the plurality of the voters who voted for Trump and his policies.

I can respect someone who says "I disagree with his positions, and would have preferred another candidate". I can respect someone who disagrees with opinions, decisions, and policies of the sitting president (or any other elected politician). But people seem to so blatantly dismiss and ignore the electorate who legitimately chose our sitting president because the dislike the person...to me that is incredibly disrespectful of one's countrymen.

(for the record, I'm one of the "little people" who voted for Trump, even though I'm solidly upper-middle class. If anything, I'm thankful for this outcome as it's made the character of the people around me -- at work, in social circles, etc -- very clear, and encouraging me to sever ties)

[drumminj]

I think it was the Trump voters (particularly in the primary), that disrespected their fellow Americans.

I'll be honest -- I have mixed feelings about responding to this, as to me it at worst looks like bait, at best is demeaning others you disagree with. I will respond to this post, but I do hope that more respect (and less condescension) will be present in future responses or I do not desire to engage further.

I will speak for myself -- I voted for the candidate whom I thought was the best choice for the country. If you want to take that as disrespectful, that's your right, but I would suggest that's quite a dismissive position. I assure you I'm not un-educated, swayed by blind patriotism, or "dey took err jerbs!".

Anyone that was paying attention even a little could see what sort of train wreck this man is. And yet they voted for him anyway. How was voting in a man of such obviously low character, anything but disrespectful to the rest of the country?

This is something I'd suggest is worth pondering. Again, I can't speak for anyone else. I'm 38 years old, have an engineering degree from one of the top five CS schools in the country, am solidly upper-middle class, have a stable, long-term relationship with another white-collar professional, donate time and substantial sums of money to local charities, have good, lasting relationships with my neighbors even years after I move away. I state these facts simply to illustrate I'm not your typical "deplorable".

Do you believe myself (and people like me) voted out of spite? Or just aren't as smart as you and folks like you, and can't be trusted to vote? Is your position here truly that my vote was "disrespectful" even though I voted for whom I truly believe best represents my interests and the best interests of the country, of the choices available to me? (and note I did vote in the primary, so I'm not complaining about only having 'two' options)

And regarding disagreeing with Trump's positions ... the truth is he has no positions. They change daily.

He ran on a platform, as do all politicians. And like all politicians, the platform meant squat when they got into office. No different from the previous president, or the president before him (I'm too young to remember exactly what platform Clinton ran on back in the day)

[farjean2]

You can't make this stuff up....

An Asian announcer gets pulled from a broadcast because his name is Robert Lee....

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... -name.html