Charlottesville

[moda0306]

Maddy, Desert, moda0306, very interesting and divergent views. Serious question: What is the source(s) that shape your view, or opinion, and how did you determine the source(s) is/are factual or true?

I'm not sure what particular view you're referring to, but the view that people do stand up for principle as opposed to being motivated politically by their own self-interest is supported in spades by the behavior of constitutional conservatives during the last eight and a half years.

It would have been very easy, given the shredding of the constitution, the dismantling of culture, and the nearly complete abandonment of the rule of law that we witnessed during the Obama administration, for constitutional conservatives to have thrown a collective temper tantrum such as the one we are presently witnessing from the Progressive Left. However, the vast majority of conservatives exercised an impressive amount of restraint and did what they have always done--played by the rules--while the other team fouled them time and time again. Amazingly, those rule-of-law conservatives held out for eight extremely demoralizing years, patiently awaiting the opportunity to register their individual vote at the polls. When you think about it, that was a really amazing exercise of character, the backbone of which came from the genuinely-held belief that the principles behind our constitutional form of government do matter, and that to win by violating those principles would be a pyrrhic victory.

Now we're facing a very different sort of overreach from the Left. Violence aimed at law-abiding citizens, the attempted creation of chaos, the quashing of divergent viewpoints, the publication of entirely made-up political narratives, and daily displays of vile, intolerant, and wholly uncivilized behavior. And once again constitutional conservatives are exercising amazing restraint, since the natural impulse of one with the power of law on his side, in the face of such egregiously criminal conduct, would be to forcibly take the criminals into custody and put them in prison--or in a state hospital--for a good long time.

In short, the rule-of-law conservatives have held fast to the principle that even when the country's very foundation is under attack and one side is playing with a double deck, it is imperative that we still adhere to our principles.

Now your phrase is "stand up," whatever that means. But before you were saying "we go to war" for these principles. While I wouldn't put it past certain individuals to join a cause at great expense for perceived principles (though usually extremely naively), the actual engineers of most wars or just political causes in-general are usually NOT in a similar position. They are careerists who sacrifice very little for the wars or other policies they propose and execute.

But to your broader that 1) Obama was uniquely flippant towards the rule of law, and that 2) "constitutional conservatives" were uniquely principled in their "stand up" against him, I guess I'd ask you a couple things...

- In what major ways was Obama and his admin uniquely flippant towards the rule of law.

- Who are these principled constitutional conservatives? Are there many politicians you would label as such, or are you talking about individual citizens? If the latter, aren't you sort of cherry picking? Wouldn't you also say that there are members of "the left" who take very principled stands and don't resort to violence and have power-decks stacked against their causes as well? Or, put a bit differently, aren't there extremely unprincipled "conservatives" in our government (caughMitchMcConnell) that aren't worthy of praise at all?

Yes, there are very principled people out there... but usually the only principle that can drive big decisions at the government level such as a WAR is rampant careerism and cronyism, and all the profit benefits of neo-Imperialism.

I would also add that if there was every any time where evidence was at its highest that "conservatives" had far fewer principles than they propose they do, it's in the election of the utter buffoon we have in the White House (and I thought the last "conservative" buffoon was bad). Rand Paul, once again, didn't stand a chance, and he's on a very, very short list of what seem to be quasi-principled politicians out there, and if we really had a critical mass of "constitutionalists" out there, Rand would have been far more popular.

[moda0306]

Maddy,

You may have answered me this before, but who are your main philisophical/informational/political-commentary influences? Like actual names of people that you count on for quality analysis of the seemingly unstoppable noise of information and misinformation out there?

[Maddy]

Maddy,

You may have answered me this before, but who are your main philisophical/informational/political-commentary influences? Like actual names of people that you count on for quality analysis of the seemingly unstoppable noise of information and misinformation out there?

Moda,

I took a full year of social philosophy in college, but in all honesty I can't recall more than a few basic themes. We went through the usual cast of characters--Hobbes, Mills, Bentham, Mills, Marx, Feuerbach and many more I'm sure--but I don't think that I ever had an "aha" moment where everything fell into place. However, to this day, certain ideas and constructs from each of them remain with me today as useful constructs.

In terms of actual influences, I'd have to say that those were much more personal. My de facto grandparents came from an Amish background, and their values of honesty, hard work, simplicity, and the importance of community built on a foundation of individual responsibility were hugely formative and have become more so as time has gone on. Throughout my life, I've studied people intently, always wanting to know what makes them tick. I've watched how the people I've known have lived out their lives and have come to my own understanding of what types of values predominate in the lives of the people I most respect and who have made me better for having known them. (They definitely were not all conservative.)

There have been some authors with whom I've felt a particular affinity, one being Harry Browne (I'm thinking here of his book, "How I Found Freedom") for his very down-to-earth and seasoned view of libertarianism. And Dale Carnegie for his very simple, common sense formula for how to get along with people.

And of course, I've read many tens of thousands of published legal cases during the course of my professional life, and have been influenced greatly by the enormous disparity between one judge and another in terms of the intellectual honesty employed in the analysis. I've also had the opportunity to see how quickly the rule of law descends into utter disarray when a judge tinkers even a little with the law in order to achieve what he or she believes is the best result. That experience, more than anything else, has impressed upon me the importance of enduring principles that provide uniformity and evenhandedness in the dispensing of justice, and that prevent the rules governing social relations from becoming arbitrary and unpredictable.

As for the people I rely on for quality political analysis, I like Sean Hannity very much. He strikes me as a very straight shooter.

[Mountaineer]

Maddy, Desert, moda0306, very interesting and divergent views. Serious question: What is the source(s) that shape your view, or opinion, and how did you determine the source(s) is/are factual or true?

Of course I use only the best logic to arrive at all my conclusions.

But seriously, I attempt to test a topic by running it across a lifetime of education and experience; also, I try to seek out several sources that I find to be not overly crazy. I talk to close friends and family a lot. Many of my friends come from a background very different than mine, so I feel that I'm getting some diversity of opinions to choose from. With all that, I am sure I sometimes come to an incorrect conclusion.

I realize I appear to be a left-winger on here, and in this group I surely am, relative to this mostly right-wing group. Unlike Maddy, I don't find either group (left or right) to be largely superior to the other. I see the pendulum swing wildly, with the result being the left having the better ideas in some periods, and the right in others. I try to look across the spectrum for the ideas that make the most sense to me, regardless of where they fall on the left/right continuum. That's how I end up with somewhat radical ideas in both directions, including being against both abortion and the display of confederate symbols on public land (not that those two are in any way close, in terms of importance).

What about you, Mountaineer? The Book of Concord?

Cognitive/Logic knowledge - based on my education which consisted of large doses of science and engineering; the main benefit was to learn how to think independently and go to source material when ever possible; i.e. don't depend on Cliff notes . I value the scientific method for the arenas in which it applies (e.g. chemistry, Newtonian physics, engineering) and do not trust it in the arenas in which it was not originally intended to be used (e.g. biology, social studies, politics, human relations, theology). I try to learn something new every day.

Experiential knowledge - based on interactions with friends, family, and coworkers from and in several different cultures, trial and error, and my study of history; these somewhat can bleed back into the cognitive area too. My experience (and independent thinking) have taught me to be skeptical of most mass media and to assume that most people have an agenda based upon their self-interest and self-benefit until demonstrated otherwise; there are very few truly purposeful people who put the well being of others above their own - the exception is a rock solid marriage/immediate family. I realize that sounds cynical. It really means I just accept and try to understand people (including myself) as we are, flaws and all, and to discern carefully what we jointly can learn from each other, both useful and that which should be discarded.

Revealed knowledge - based on the Word which is the objective external source that distinguishes and defines right and wrong (i.e. morals, not moralism), truth, good and evil, how to live our lives in peace and freedom regardless of world events and economic status, and how a secure future has been assured for me.

I try not to focus too much on left, right, liberal, or conservative and especially try not to get all worked up over things that are not in my control or sphere of influence. In my opinion, they are all just stereotypical labels and the people I know are individuals in community with me and should be treated as such; it is like my congregation - a mix of rich and poor, black and white and brown, Republicans and Democrats and Independents, very intelligent and mentally challenged, tall and short, drinkers and abstainers, men and women and children, deeply involved and occasional seat warmers only - bottom line is all those differences almost never come to the forefront (i.e. are not topics of gossip among us); people are focused on the gifts they receive (the Means of Grace in our terminology). I personally try to remember that everything I have is a gift - every breath, my family, my friends, my faith, my health, and my life. I try to receive those gifts thankfully and tell others about them. I try not to meddle in others' affairs. I often do not do it well; I get back up and remember tomorrow is a brand new day with a brand new start.

[Xan]

Another article, this one from the Atlantic (rated "left center").

Lee is a pivotal figure in American history worthy of study. Neither the man who really existed, nor the fictionalized tragic hero of the Lost Cause, are heroes worthy of a statue in a place of honor. As one Union veteran angrily put it in 1903 when Pennsylvania was considering placing a statute to Lee at Gettysburg, “If you want historical accuracy as your excuse, then place upon this field a statue of Lee holding in his hand the banner under which he fought, bearing the legend: ‘We wage this war against a government conceived in liberty and dedicated to humanity.’” The most fitting monument to Lee is the national military cemetery the federal government placed on the grounds of his former home in Arlington.

To describe this man as an American hero requires ignoring the immense suffering for which he was personally responsible, both on and off the battlefield. It requires ignoring his participation in the industry of human bondage, his betrayal of his country in defense of that institution, the battlefields scattered with the lifeless bodies of men who followed his orders and those they killed, his hostility toward the rights of the freedmen and his indifference to his own students waging a campaign of terror against the newly emancipated. It requires reducing the sum of human virtue to a sense of decorum and the ability to convey gravitas in a gray uniform.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/529038/

The vast, vast majority of those lifeless bodies were on the Southern side of the border. Why is that? Because the South fought a defensive war against an invading army. I suppose the invading army bears no responsibility; only Lee?

In no way was there a betrayal of the "country". The country as we now know it is what replaced the pre-war USA. Lee's country was Virginia. If Lee had been a traitor, then Davis certainly was, and yet (despite holding him illegally for years) the feds were never able to find a single charge to prosecute Davis (or anyone) with.

Would you (and this is a serious if hypothetical question, really, Desert) support Canada conquering the US in order to put a stop to abortions? And regardless of your answer, would you say that in the post-war now-part-of-Canada US, anybody who wanted to put up a statue memorializing either a great leader of the defense of the US or a memorial to those who died in her defense, is by definition supporting baby-murder, or at least baby-murderers?

[Xan]

Interesting. I'm not going to say you're wrong. Would you at least, in this scenario, admit that people who did put up such statues are not NECESSARILY baby-murder fans?

[Xan]

Interesting. I'm not going to say you're wrong. Would you at least, in this scenario, admit that people who did put up such statues are not NECESSARILY baby-murder fans?

I would say that it's possible they weren't baby murdering fans. But if they were erecting said statues at precisely the same time as they were trying to functionally reverse some results of the Canadian abortion ban, I might become suspicious.

Fair enough. Thanks for playing along. It's an interesting thought experiment, much like the one you just posed in the other thread.

EDIT: I should point out that in this hypothetical, I've granted more than I believe to be true in the Civil War case: here, Canada's moral imperative is the sole reason for the war. That is definitely not the case for the antebellum North, which greedily wanted to use the federal government to take from the South and give to the North.

[Mountaineer]

The vast, vast majority of those lifeless bodies were on the Southern side of the border. Why is that? Because the South fought a defensive war against an invading army. I suppose the invading army bears no responsibility; only Lee?

In no way was there a betrayal of the "country". The country as we now know it is what replaced the pre-war USA. Lee's country was Virginia. If Lee had been a traitor, then Davis certainly was, and yet (despite holding him illegally for years) the feds were never able to find a single charge to prosecute Davis (or anyone) with.

Would you (and this is a serious if hypothetical question, really, Desert) support Canada conquering the US in order to put a stop to abortions? And regardless of your answer, would you say that in the post-war now-part-of-Canada US, anybody who wanted to put up a statue memorializing either a great leader of the defense of the US or a memorial to those who died in her defense, is by definition supporting baby-murder, or at least baby-murderers?

Xan, Ok, I have pondered some, but am only going to try to answer the second part of your post, the hypothetical. I think it's a really well-posed hypothetical question that does relate pretty well to this topic. I'll have to come back to the first part, after I've studied more regarding the initiation of the Civil War.

Ok, Canada (in this hypothetical situation, having found a moral imperative to cease abortion in North America), decides to attach the United States in an effort to stop abortion in our country. Would I support Canada in such an effort? I think I have to say "yes," but only if I think they have some chance of prevailing. Obviously the Canada that exists today wouldn't have any chance, so I'll postulate a Canada of somewhat superior military capability, similar to the North vs. the South in the Civil War. So yes, I would be forced to support Canada in that invasion. And I would expect you and Mountaineer to join me.

And of course I would not be in favor of putting monuments of, say, general Schwarzkopf (may God rest his soul), up in town squares if he were leading the opposition. (I couldn't think of a more engaging general at the moment).

My response is in the religion thread.

[moda0306]

Scott Adams, how to know you are in a hysteria bubble http://blog.dilbert.com/post/16429762860

Link didn't work.

I heard him on a podcast with Sam Harris recently discussing Trump. While his insights to human motivation are interesting, I've heard people explore the topic of persuasion and motivation far-better than him, and then all you're left with were his dizzyingly frustrating "defenses" of Trump as of late. So I've found him to be of almost zero unique value as some have here. Maybe I'm missing some of his best work...

changed link to http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1642976286 ... ria-bubble

[moda0306]

changed link to http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1642976286 ... ria-bubble

On November 8th of 2016, half the country learned that everything they believed to be both true and obvious turned out to be wrong.

That's some hyperbole for someone trying to temper or at least identify mass hysteria.

One sign of a good mass hysteria is that it sounds bonkers to anyone who is not experiencing it.

Same goes with rational analysis and critical thinking... So what?

3. The Confirmation Bias

Something we are all guilty of... to varying degrees. But the idea that the ANTI-Trump crowd is uniquely guilty of this is laughable. Trump is a walking blob of confirmation bias, as are a critical mass of his devotees.

4. The Oversized Reaction

See my last reaction. You're talking about a man (and avid supporters) whose response to the media was libel laws, ISIS was mass invasion of the M.E. to "take their oil," and that flag-burners should be punished without due process. Once again, Trump is a walking "Oversized Reaction," as are his devotees.

5. The Insult without supporting argument

Holy f'king hell. Do I need to even need to comment on this one? Human-kind is bad at generating supporting arguments for their claims. Trump is absolutely terrible at them. As are his devotees.

So where is the hysteria, truly? Those who think Trump is somewhere between a buffoon and a dangerous neo-fascist, or those who defend him with this drivel... All in all, I agree that different segments of "the Left" and "the establishment" have glaring flaws. But there are ways to address those flaws that aren't leaning on the most buffoonish slime-ball that has ever seen the oval office... as President... you know... the guy who controls the nuclear arsenal while "the apologist right" hand-wrings over confederate statues as educational sources, antifa rabble rousers, and the Russia anti-scandal.

If you want to learn about persuasion, read "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion." Scott Adams is a joke.

[moda0306]

More...

But if a Republican agrees with you that Nazis are the worst, and you threaten to punch that Republican for not agreeing with you exactly the right way, that might be an oversized reaction.

Well yeah... antifa rabble threatening to "punch nazis" are engaged in an "oversized reaction."

Antifa Rabble...

We're talking a sliver of the population. If that is "mass hysteria," then there are mass hysteria going on all over the place on the right, left, center and "other" in every country.

For the past two days I have been disavowing Nazis on Twitter. The most common response from the people who agree with me is that my comic strip sucks and I am ugly.

Wow you got low-brow insults on Twitter? That's your sign of mass hysteria?

Thank God Trump supporters are too busy laying out rational, scientific arguments for their nuanced policy proposals... otherwise they might get in on the online insult machine.

If you are inside the mass hysteria bubble, I look like a Nazi collaborator.

So for the 10% of the population he's speaking of... I guess I don't know what to say. But what about the people that think he's just a dim-wit trying to profit off of a prediction and some loose knowledge of persuasion? Are we part of the "mass hysteria?"

[moda0306]

Scott Adams is a joke.

Yes. He needs to stick to his comic strip.

I like Dilbert... and hell I'm starting to really, really like The Apprentice, if you get my drift.

[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)