NinthMusketeer wrote: Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.
The special secure Blackberry phone that was given to him to replace his private cell phone?
There is absolutely no way Trump's phone doesn't have analogous security measures.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.
The special secure Blackberry phone that was given to him to replace his private cell phone?
There is absolutely no way Trump's phone doesn't have analogous security measures.
I wouldn't be surprised if he has his a separate private (non-secure) phone for non-Presidential stuff.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.
Well, Obama had his phone replaced and also never tweeted major policy decisions as his primary method of announcing them.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.
The special secure Blackberry phone that was given to him to replace his private cell phone?
There is absolutely no way Trump's phone doesn't have analogous security measures.
Trump has been caught lying about his trip to Russia, the trip were the infamous pee tape was alleged to have been made. Trump has stated often, and most notably to James Comey while he was still FBI director, that the pee tape can't be real because Trump didn't even stay the night and so couldn't have made the tape. But Bloomberg went and got the flight records and sure enough, Trump was lying, he had stayed overnight. See, Trump's claim is that he left Moscow on a flight back to America as soon as the after-party was done. But what Trump concealed is that he arrived in Moscow on the Friday and stayed Friday night. So yeah, he was in Moscow over night, and when Trump claimed otherwise he was lying.
Now we all know people who've told lies to try and deny truthful allegations against them. But does anyone know a single person who's ever told a lie to deny a false allegation? I can't believe it, but I'm actually starting to believe the pee tape is real.
Frazzled wrote: The Daniels attorney pushing this supports my theory that he is being compensated by the DNC, else he would not comment as it's not relevant to the case.
You are right that Avenatti is doing more than just merely representing Daniels in a purely legal case, but outside of that you're way off base. In his case prior to this, Avenatti was the lead counsel in winning a $454 million medical fraud case. Avenatti doesn't need Democrat money. Democrats need Avenatti money.
On the greater issue of Avenatti using the platform to comment outside of the Daniels' case, it's mess of an argument. Sure, Avenatti is also making a lot of trouble for Cohen, Trump and Hannity outside of Daniels' case - but each bit of that trouble only helps Daniels, as well as hurting his opponents. "How dare a lawyer gleefully put the boot in to his opponent" is a deeply ridiculous complaint.
Frazzled wrote: She is not a journalist, any more than MSNBC's or CNN's evening talkers.
Yeah, this is the Hannity line of defense. It's pure crap and no-one actually believes it. On a simple matter of definition, journalism includes opinion journalism. While an opinion journalist doesn't have to maintain neutrality, they still have to be truthful and disclose their personal connections. The only way you can get around that is by claiming to be in advocacy, not journalism. And no-one tunes in to any of the FOX News pundits thinking 'great I'm about to hear the PR lines of the Republican party with no regard for independent thought or analysis'. I mean sure, when they tune in that's exactly what they get, but the whole point of the exercise is FOX and its audience pretending it's something else so the audience feels better about being spoon fed that nonsense.
Not that any of that applies at all in this case, because Ingraham used her national platform to mock a highschool kid who failed to get in to his reach college. That isn't so much about breaching ethical standards, its about Ingraham being a gakky person.
skyth wrote: Apparently the dumpster fire is using anti-Semetic terms to insult Jewish people that disagree with him. Referring to Chuck Todd as 'Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd'.
I don't think that's anti-semitic. That said, I don't know why Trump didn't go for something about Todd's height, the guy is tiny.
Hopefully he's OK, but this may be it. He is 93 and they were very close.
It will be sad if he passes, but honestly checking out in your 90s, surrounded by grandkids and great grandkids, after a life of public service at the highest level... that's just about the perfect way to go.
When I read about GHW Bush's military service, it dawned on me that Bush and Kennedy were peers, both serving in the same war. I looked it up, they were 7 years apart in age, but belonged in totally different eras of American politics. It's given me a lot to unpack. The life Kennedy could have had. The idea that America and the world changed so much in 30 years, but America's politicians were all still drawn from the same demographic. That Bill Clinton was a generational shift I hadn't really appreciated before now.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.
Because Obama didn't use his phone to bypass his own Chief of Staff in order to contact congress people and other key figures. This shows the dysfunction in the Trump Whitehouse, and also raises concerns about record keeping - whether those calls are logged as even happening. These are things that until very recently conservatives claimed to be very concerned about.
So in the age of "but her emails", how does everybody feel about the use of a personal cellphone and all the security vulnerabilities and lack of accountability that come with it?
It's very concerning... but, I doubt his phones are w/o any security measures. Probably not as good as Obama's blackberry... but, who knows... maybe el Trump got something better. Tech advancements still moves pretty rapidly.
Furthermore, it's a lil'different than "but her emails" in the sense that POTUS can declassify things at will... whereas HRC could not.
whembly wrote: Furthermore, it's a lil'different than "but her emails" in the sense that POTUS can declassify things at will... whereas HRC could not.
First, 'but her emails' thing wasn't just about information security, it was also about meant to be transparency and record keeping. Second, that defense is legalistic gobbledygook.
Just stop and think about the actual reason things are kept secret - so essential national security items don't fall in to the hands of rival nations. It makes sense that a president would be empowered to decide what needed to be kept secret, but it makes zero sense to conclude it doesn't matter to the country if the president is reckless with things that are meant to be kept secret.
Now, I think the national security elements of this are more than a little overblown, there's no indication Trump is using his phone for any communications that would need to be secured. But it certainly says something when people immediately launch in to such a legalistic, substance free defense of Trump.
sebster wrote: But does anyone know a single person who's ever told a lie to deny a false allegation?
Not to comment on the reality/falsehood of any potential tape, but let's be honest here: Trump is perhaps the one person where it's entirely plausible that this is the case. He probably heard the allegation and lied about it by reflex without even thinking if it was true or not. Remember, this is not a mentally healthy human, this is a man who thinks on the lines of 'I don't want this to be true, therefore it isn't'.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.
Because Obama didn't use his phone to bypass his own Chief of Staff in order to contact congress people and other key figures. This shows the dysfunction in the Trump Whitehouse, and also raises concerns about record keeping - whether those calls are logged as even happening. These are things that until very recently conservatives claimed to be very concerned about.
Oh absolutely, but that was and is a problem that exists well outside of his phone use that spreads across several other areas. Like not reporting who visits the White House or keeping his tax returns under wraps. The phone is merely a small symptom of a much, much larger problem.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.
The special secure Blackberry phone that was given to him to replace his private cell phone?
There is absolutely no way Trump's phone doesn't have analogous security measures.
That’s 0 for 2.
Do we have good evidence that Trump's phone has no extra security? I'm happy to admit I'm wrong is that is the case. Either way I don't mean to suggest that his phone is just as secure as Obama's (there's no way to know that for sure anyways) and I would guess that it is not as secure. But that there is no security beyond the basic amount that comes with any random smart phone?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Not to comment on the reality/falsehood of any potential tape, but let's be honest here: Trump is perhaps the one person where it's entirely plausible that this is the case. He probably heard the allegation and lied about it by reflex without even thinking if it was true or not. Remember, this is not a mentally healthy human, this is a man who thinks on the lines of 'I don't want this to be true, therefore it isn't'.
Lying to deny something you actually did isn't ethical, but it is sane. Lying to deny something you didn't even do is something else entirely, that's crazy. Trump is a lot of bad things including an habitual liar, but he isn't a crazy person.
Oh absolutely, but that was and is a problem that exists well outside of his phone use that spreads across several other areas. Like not reporting who visits the White House or keeping his tax returns under wraps. The phone is merely a small symptom of a much, much larger problem.
Agreed. Thinking about it, there's actually two ways this is a symptom of something bigger. The first is that it shows the insanity inside Trump's Whitehouse - rather than the Chief of Staff being Trump's right hand man, instead he's an obstacle to whatever crazy nonsense Trump wants to do. The second and maybe bigger reason is it shows the hypocrisy of the Republican party, it is yet another instance of Republicans suddenly going quiet on something they pretended was a great outrage when a Democrat was in the Whitehouse.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Not to comment on the reality/falsehood of any potential tape, but let's be honest here: Trump is perhaps the one person where it's entirely plausible that this is the case. He probably heard the allegation and lied about it by reflex without even thinking if it was true or not. Remember, this is not a mentally healthy human, this is a man who thinks on the lines of 'I don't want this to be true, therefore it isn't'.
Lying to deny something you actually did isn't ethical, but it is sane. Lying to deny something you didn't even do is something else entirely, that's crazy. Trump is a lot of bad things including an habitual liar, but he isn't a crazy person.
I suppose that's where we disagree; I feel like Trump IS crazy in the sense that he is mentally ill/dysfunctional. I don't pull that out of the air either, there are plenty of professionals who have said as such. I honestly believe that him lying as a reflex to any sort of accusation (true or fictional) is entirely plausible. I think to him it isn't even lying--he is just stating what he wants to be true and to his brain there isn't a difference between that and what is actually true, or in other words he cannot comprehend the idea of objective reality.
This article, nominally about the strange uproar over Shania Twain saying she would have liked to vote for Trump, finally helps makes sense of why someone who is caught repeatedly lying could be seen by people as 'authentic'. Twain said she would have liked to vote for Trump because she thought he was authentic. This prompted the article I've linked to that examines that very weird thing - how a serial liar could come to be seen as authentic. It wasn't because Trump supporters were ignorant of Trump's repeated lies,
"Even though most Trump supporters were willing to admit that Trump lies, they also rated him as extremely “authentic.” "
Instead Trump supporters knew he lied, bigly, and still considered him authentic. The article suggests that when voters come to see a system as illegitimate, they start to see any act that bucks the norm as positive. So Trump's obvious lies and even his racism was a feature, not a bug, because it showed Trump was bucking the rules, not playing by the game that they saw as illegitimate. So by this bizarre process, lying comes to be seen as a sign of authenticity.
For me, after two years of glib nonsense trying to explain how Trump could be seen as honest despite his lies (seriously, not literally etc), it's the closest I've come to an explanation. It also happens to help me make sense of a lot of conversations with Trump supporters, about why pointing out Trump's lies had no effect on their insistence that Trump said it like it was.
As for the part about the system no longer being legitimate, that's interesting in itself. It describes two forms of illegitimacy, the first being a representation crisis, when voters no longer believe the establishment governs on their behalf, and the second power devaluation crisis, when voters from a once dominant class see more power being given to formerly less powerful groups.
Oh, and as for Shania Twain, she's already backtracked, and honestly I'm just sad that anyone cared in the first place about how a Canadian might have theoretically voted in a US election.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I suppose that's where we disagree; I feel like Trump IS crazy in the sense that he is mentally ill/dysfunctional. I don't pull that out of the air either, there are plenty of professionals who have said as such. I honestly believe that him lying as a reflex to any sort of accusation (true or fictional) is entirely plausible. I think to him it isn't even lying--he is just stating what he wants to be true and to his brain there isn't a difference between that and what is actually true, or in other words he cannot comprehend the idea of objective reality.
I think we should be really wary of anyone trying to assess a person's mental health just from how they appear on tv. Anyhow, fair enough that we differ. I think we agree that Trump lies frequently and with little regard to being caught, we just differ on whether he would lie in such a self-destructive way as telling a disprovable lie to deny something that wasn't even true anyway. I will grant that if anyone was such a chronic liar that they would do that, it would be Trump.
With relation to the pee tape, I came up with a little theory I use to predict the outcome of any Trump related scandal or any event which seems to have multiple explanations.
When attributing motive to Trump and his team, always start first by assuming the dumbest possible reason for things to happen is true. Then, if further explanation is needed, assume the crudest and most degrading answer is true.
For this reason I think the pee tape absolutely exists, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong, because seeing the degradation of standards in what used to be a serious democracy is extremely upsetting.
The National Security Council has a comparatively lean budget—approximately twelve million dollars—and so its staff consists largely of career professionals on loan from the State Department, the Pentagon, and other agencies. When Trump assumed office, N.S.C. staffers initially generated memos for him that resembled those produced for his predecessors: multi-page explications of policy and strategy. But “an edict came down,” a former staffer told me: “ ‘Thin it out.’ ” The staff dutifully trimmed the memos to a single page. “But then word comes back: ‘This is still too much.’ ” A senior Trump aide explained to the staffers that the President is “a visual person,” and asked them to express points “pictorially.”
“By the time I left, we had these cards,” the former staffer said. They are long and narrow, made of heavy stock, and emblazoned with the words “the white house” at the top. Trump receives a thick briefing book every night, but nobody harbors the illusion that he reads it. Current and former officials told me that filling out a card is the best way to raise an issue with him in writing. Everything that needs to be conveyed to the President must be boiled down, the former staffer said, to “two or three points, with the syntactical complexity of ‘See Jane run.’ ”
...Trump did not have many concrete views on foreign policy beyond bumper-sticker sentiments like “America first.” When McMaster requested Trump’s input, the President grew frustrated and defensive, as if he’d been ambushed with a pop quiz.
Da Boss wrote: When attributing motive to Trump and his team, always start first by assuming the dumbest possible reason for things to happen is true. Then, if further explanation is needed, assume the crudest and most degrading answer is true.
I cannot think of a single thing that breaks this rule of thumb.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I suppose that's where we disagree; I feel like Trump IS crazy in the sense that he is mentally ill/dysfunctional. I don't pull that out of the air either, there are plenty of professionals who have said as such.
I think any mental health professional willing to suggest a diagnosis for someone they have never met, let alone treated, really says more about themselves and their professionalism than it does about the person they are speculating on.
sebster wrote: This article, nominally about the strange uproar over Shania Twain saying she would have liked to vote for Trump, finally helps makes sense of why someone who is caught repeatedly lying could be seen by people as 'authentic'. Twain said she would have liked to vote for Trump because she thought he was authentic. This prompted the article I've linked to that examines that very weird thing - how a serial liar could come to be seen as authentic.
In what way was he not authentic? I think President Trump has performed pretty much exactly as Candidate Trump has. The guy who got up on a podium and mocked a disabled reporter in front of thousands of people, who constantly threw out racial dogwhistles, who reflexively lied about matters great and small, and so on... well, his behavior has been pretty much exactly the same way once in office. You definitely got what was advertised on the tin.
Ouze wrote: In what way was he not authentic? I think President Trump has performed pretty much exactly as Candidate Trump has. The guy who got up on a podium and mocked a disabled reporter in front of thousands of people, who constantly threw out racial dogwhistles, who reflexively lied about matters great and small, and so on... well, his behavior has been pretty much exactly the same way once in office. You definitely got what was advertised on the tin.
I think the confusion came from authentic often being assumed, at least by me, to include honesty. My realisation was that people were using authentic to describe Trump with no relation to whether he was telling the truth. This is from the research piece being covered in the article I linked to;
“If the key to the authentic appeal of the lying demagogue is that he is signalling a willingness to be regarded as a pariah by the establishment, Trump was certainly a credible pariah”
NinthMusketeer wrote: I suppose that's where we disagree; I feel like Trump IS crazy in the sense that he is mentally ill/dysfunctional. I don't pull that out of the air either, there are plenty of professionals who have said as such.
I think any mental health professional willing to suggest a diagnosis for someone they have never met, let alone treated, really says more about themselves and their professionalism than it does about the person they are speculating on.
... ...
There is a tradition that US mental health people don't comment on the mental health of the president.
Suggestions of possible diagnoses can be made without actually meeting him, though. You simply take the symptoms and match them against the known symptoms for mental ill-health and see what matches come up. This is how questions in medical exams often work, though obviously the examples are either made up or anonymized.
To actually make a firm diagnosis and start a plan of treatment, of course a doctor would need to meet the patient, do additional tests and so on.
skyth wrote: Apparently the dumpster fire is using anti-Semetic terms to insult Jewish people that disagree with him. Referring to Chuck Todd as 'Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd'.
I don't think that's anti-semitic. That said, I don't know why Trump didn't go for something about Todd's height, the guy is tiny.
It is absolutely an anti-Semitic dog whistle. It's part of the Nazi 'how to spot a Jew' that is also used by modern neo-nazi's. And it is applied towards a Jew. My friends that are Jewish are up in arms about this.
Oh, and as for Shania Twain, she's already backtracked, and honestly I'm just sad that anyone cared in the first place about how a Canadian might have theoretically voted in a US election.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.
The special secure Blackberry phone that was given to him to replace his private cell phone?
If you remember, he was criticized by the GOP for ditching it for his personal phone. Personally, I think they just need to take the tech toys away until their term is over. At least set an example for all these government employees that keep racking up HIPAA violations via facebook and twitter.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.
The special secure Blackberry phone that was given to him to replace his private cell phone?
If you remember, he was criticized by the GOP for ditching it for his personal phone.
Do you have a source for your claim Obama ditched his secure device in favor of an unsecured, personal cell phone? Or is that not what you're saying; and I'm misunderstanding you?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I suppose that's where we disagree; I feel like Trump IS crazy in the sense that he is mentally ill/dysfunctional. I don't pull that out of the air either, there are plenty of professionals who have said as such.
I think any mental health professional willing to suggest a diagnosis for someone they have never met, let alone treated, really says more about themselves and their professionalism than it does about the person they are speculating on.
... ...
There is a tradition that US mental health people don't comment on the mental health of the president.
Suggestions of possible diagnoses can be made without actually meeting him, though. You simply take the symptoms and match them against the known symptoms for mental ill-health and see what matches come up. This is how questions in medical exams often work, though obviously the examples are either made up or anonymized.
To actually make a firm diagnosis and start a plan of treatment, of course a doctor would need to meet the patient, do additional tests and so on.
Not really... as a mental health professional, you simply don't "diagnose" anyone w/o seeing them in person... and any professionals doing so runs major risks to not only themselves...but, their profession. Hence why it's really frowned upon...
NinthMusketeer wrote: I suppose that's where we disagree; I feel like Trump IS crazy in the sense that he is mentally ill/dysfunctional. I don't pull that out of the air either, there are plenty of professionals who have said as such.
I think any mental health professional willing to suggest a diagnosis for someone they have never met, let alone treated, really says more about themselves and their professionalism than it does about the person they are speculating on.
Does mention other plans for "CAL 3" and even the rural 51st state plan.
Frankly, I'm intrigued by the "CAL 3" plan, even though it'll net the democratic party 2 more almost "gimmies" senators.... any plan whereby the government can be more responsive and aligned to their constituents ought to be a net gain as a whole, no matter how one would look at it.
I could halfway see a GOP congress approving a Calexit plan just to get rid of all those dang liberals and then dividing up their seats between some more red states
d-usa wrote: I could halfway see a GOP congress approving a Calexit plan just to get rid of all those dang liberals and then dividing up their seats between some more red states
Heh... I get there's a thread of folks who'd:
...and actively cheer for stuff like this.
But, the Civil War kinda prohibit this...doesn't it?
Well, I think Texas v. White (rather than the Civil War itself, set a precedent that no state can secede unilaterally.
Which leaves the question about the ability of states to request permission to secede with the permission of the other states, and then the process by which such permission would be given. Would it be an act of congress as a representative of the states, or would a majority of states have to individually ratify an approval?
Not really sure what I'm supposed to say about the subject.
California is blue Texas. People threaten and pander out some Calexit idea every time the Reds win, and someone proposes the "split California 3-ways" plan around since the state was formed cause way back when there still were too many brown people owning land and voting for the tastes of rich white folks which is all the split it three ways plan is ultimately about.
d-usa wrote: Well, I think Texas v. White (rather than the Civil War itself, set a precedent that no state can secede unilaterally.
Which leaves the question about the ability of states to request permission to secede with the permission of the other states, and then the process by which such permission would be given. Would it be an act of congress as a representative of the states, or would a majority of states have to individually ratify an approval?
I'd be ok with that. I'm not ok with them bombarding a Federal military base, while saying "dueces".
No one secedes while maintaining a great respect for the legal authority ruling them, so a ruling that secession is unconstitutional is really only valid as casus belli to force the seceding part back into the fold and provides a legal basis for how to reintegrate them at the end of hostilities should the legal authority in question be the victor (and really a part of your territory being in open rebellion is already casus belli).
And a political environment so cordial as to make it feasible to negotiate secession of a part from the whole absent conflict is one where I doubt anyone would want to secede in the first place. Secession happens because relations are not cordial. The only successful non-violent secessions I can think of all hinged on the governing authority fearing foreign armed intervention, or the governing authority collapsing and being unable to enforce its interests. Neither of these seem likely anytime soon when it comes to the US.
Norway unilaterally broke from its personal union with Sweden in 1905. The Swedish government very much considered military intervention to maintain the union but in the end chose to let Norway go peacefully. Technically not secession, but close.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Norway unilaterally broke from its personal union with Sweden in 1905. The Swedish government very much considered military intervention to maintain the union but in the end chose to let Norway go peacefully. Technically not secession, but close.
Definitely not a true secession which is why I don't include it. As I understand it Norway and Sweden still had basically separate government structures (each having their own parliament and constitution) and the union in the first place nominally hinged that the King would serve Norwegian interests as well which inherently admits that Norwegian interests were separate from Swedish interests. It was more a case of Imperial control on Sweden's part that it allowed to dissolve and not a secession, at least not in the sense we're discussing here.
LordofHats wrote: Not really sure what I'm supposed to say about the subject.
California is blue Texas. People threaten and pander out some Calexit idea every time the Reds win, and someone proposes the "split California 3-ways" plan around since the state was formed cause way back when there still were too many brown people owning land and voting for the tastes of rich white folks which is all the split it three ways plan is ultimately about.
Sorry... didn't mean to call you out. I figured you'd have something to say.
Nah I just can't think of much to say about it. Nothing will come of it you know? It's another one of those silly nontopics that tends to come up on slow newsweeks or when someone wants to pan handle some outrage. Realistically the US would probably benefit from splitting some of the larger states, namely California and Texas, but it'll never happen because people only talk about splitting them when it's politically convenient and not as a matter of actually keeping our political sub-divisions manageable and accountable to constituents. And I also am just sour about it, because especially in Cali it really does come down to "damn those city folks caring about issues that I don't have a reason to care about." It's a democracy. People are going to fight for and get things that don't mean anything to you that's just kind of a byproduct of how it works. I'm horribly unsympathetic to people selectively bitching about policy outcomes as if their a structural issue when they're really a "stop being a selfish prick" issue.
Pretty much 75% of my problems with US politics boil down to it in my eye.
LordofHats wrote: It's a democracy. People are going to fight for and get things that don't mean anything to you that's just kind of a byproduct of how it works. I'm horribly unsympathetic to people selectively bitching about policy outcomes as if their a structural issue when they're really a "stop being a selfish prick" issue.
Pretty much 75% of my problems with US politics boil down to it in my eye.
To be honest it causes about 75% of the problems in the whole Western Hemisphere! My Dad always says that democracy doesn’t mean you get what you want. It’s amazing how many people don’t understand that at a fundamental level.
Yep. Democracy only nominally presumes that your voice will be heard. In an idealistic way it also presumes that your voice is equal to everyone elses, but I think the world now has learned a little cynicism on that front.
Perhaps Mike Flynn, fresh on his unearned rehabilitation tour.
I've mentioned it before in passing, but I know Mike Flynn. I doubt he'd remember me, but he and my dad still talk (Flynn was under his command in the 82nd about 10 years ago), and I don't think he's guilty. Oh I think he did what he's accused of doing sure, but I know they guy enough to know that he's not stupid and he doesn't do anything without someone above him okaying it. As an acquaintance I think Mike Flynn was thrown under the bus to cover someone's ass.
Does mention other plans for "CAL 3" and even the rural 51st state plan.
Frankly, I'm intrigued by the "CAL 3" plan, even though it'll net the democratic party 2 more almost "gimmies" senators.... any plan whereby the government can be more responsive and aligned to their constituents ought to be a net gain as a whole, no matter how one would look at it.
I was looking at some of the "split CA three ways" plans. From what I was reading, Democrats would maintain the two senators from the current California, possibly pick up two from one new state (although that state could be purple and flip-floppy), and the republicans would gain two senators from a conservative state.
Crazyterran wrote: Wouldn’t the net gain effectively be 0 then? Seems like a wasted effort.
That depends on the house and EC votes. It certainly would benefit Republicans more if the number of house seats and EC votes of Cali would just be redristributed over the three new ones.
d-usa wrote: I could halfway see a GOP congress approving a Calexit plan just to get rid of all those dang liberals and then dividing up their seats between some more red states
Heh... I get there's a thread of folks who'd:
...and actively cheer for stuff like this.
But, the Civil War kinda prohibit this...doesn't it?
Where's Dakka's own historian? LORDY?
I have dead relatives who say the Union would frown on any secession movement. States can break up though.
Crazyterran wrote: Wouldn’t the net gain effectively be 0 then? Seems like a wasted effort.
That depends on the house and EC votes. It certainly would benefit Republicans more if the number of house seats and EC votes of Cali would just be redristributed over the three new ones.
Unless Congress changes the current apportionment laws/limits the 3 new California states would just redistribute the existing House representatives so it really wouldn't help the representation ratio. The EC would increase by a total of 4 votes, one for each of the senators from the 2 new states. The northern "conservative" new state likely wouldn't have enough seats in the House to matter much electorally. Sure every little bit helps in an election but that state would likely have single digit EC votes.
Crazyterran wrote: Wouldn’t the net gain effectively be 0 then? Seems like a wasted effort.
That depends on the house and EC votes. It certainly would benefit Republicans more if the number of house seats and EC votes of Cali would just be redristributed over the three new ones.
Unless Congress changes the current apportionment laws/limits the 3 new California states would just redistribute the existing House representatives so it really wouldn't help the representation ratio. The EC would increase by a total of 4 votes, one for each of the senators from the 2 new states. The northern "conservative" new state likely wouldn't have enough seats in the House to matter much electorally. Sure every little bit helps in an election but that state would likely have single digit EC votes.
Yes, it would benefit the Republicans more as they gain some while the Democrats lose some when it comes to the EC. Even though that would almost never come into play, its still to their benefit.
Kanye and Trump have the same personality (attention seeking and narcissistic) and both know about the same about policy so it's a good fit. I can't wait for the inevitable "Trump can't be racist, Kanye West likes him!" from the same groups that spew racism and dog-whistles constantly.
skyth wrote: It is absolutely an anti-Semitic dog whistle. It's part of the Nazi 'how to spot a Jew' that is also used by modern neo-nazi's. And it is applied towards a Jew. My friends that are Jewish are up in arms about this.
Fair enough. I don't know my anti-semitism that well. Thanks for the explanation.
when we become president we have to change the name of the plane from Air Force one to Yeezy force one ☝️
— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) April 25, 2018
Harvey Levin of TMZ your hearing from your future president. Let's be friends. Please never use the word erratic to describe a person who is economically and psychologically empowered
Turns out appointing a guy because you liked how he looks at a press conference isn't a good move.
The thing about Ronny Jackson is that he had absolutely no qualifications for the role before this stuff broke. Now it turns out Trump and his team underwent absolutely no vetting of Jackson before nominating him.
In the wake of this, after Jackson withdraws his nomination, the story will be that a Trump nomination backfired and after a couple of days of coverage that doesn't move outside the circle of political junkies, the story will disappear. But there is a real and important story here, because Jackson is not unusual for a Trump nomination - he picks people with no regard to their qualifications or experience, and then his office does no vetting before putting them forward for senate approval. He puts less thought in to who he appoints to administer departments with $100 billion budgets than I put what sandwich I was going to make for lunch today.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: To be fair... that's like the mostCanadian thing tho.
Nah, Kanye personally met with #45 very early after winning. I think its genuine.
#orangeisthenewblack
Although there may be an element of trolling involved. What got this ball rolling was Kanye tweeting support to a prominent, young, female black conservative speaker (Candace Owens). He was attacked for that and these most recent tweets seem like he’s doubling down.
whembly wrote: ...any plan whereby the government can be more responsive and aligned to their constituents ought to be a net gain as a whole, no matter how one would look at it.
The problem, to me, is the lack of representation felt by rural California is nowhere out of the ordinary in modern US politics. It's just another instance of the city/rural split. In this case the city strongly dominates the rural so conservatives happen to be hyper-sensitive to it, but is it really any different to Austin (and also sort Houston) being dominated by the rest of Texas?
If it's sufficient to split up California, then how can the same logic not be used to split most blue cities from the red rural counties that surround them?
whembly wrote: ...any plan whereby the government can be more responsive and aligned to their constituents ought to be a net gain as a whole, no matter how one would look at it.
The problem, to me, is the lack of representation felt by rural California is nowhere out of the ordinary in modern US politics. It's just another instance of the city/rural split. In this case the city strongly dominates the rural so conservatives happen to be hyper-sensitive to it, but is it really any different to Austin (and also sort Houston) being dominated by the rest of Texas?
If it's sufficient to split up California, then how can the same logic not be used to split most blue cities from the red rural counties that surround them?
cuda1179 wrote: I was looking at some of the "split CA three ways" plans. From what I was reading, Democrats would maintain the two senators from the current California, possibly pick up two from one new state (although that state could be purple and flip-floppy), and the republicans would gain two senators from a conservative state.
Having pushed the gerrymander of the House as far as they can, Republicans are trying to find ways to gerrymander the Senate. Incredible.
Anyway, it's beyond absurd that US citizens living in DC and Puerto Rico have no representation in Congress, but people will spend time trying to break up California in to multiple states.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: Wouldn’t the net gain effectively be 0 then? Seems like a wasted effort.
It would go from 2 Dems, 0 Reps, to averaging 3 Dems & 3 Reps. So Reps would gain 2 seats on net.
And then there's the electoral college advantages, as already mentioned.
cuda1179 wrote: I was looking at some of the "split CA three ways" plans. From what I was reading, Democrats would maintain the two senators from the current California, possibly pick up two from one new state (although that state could be purple and flip-floppy), and the republicans would gain two senators from a conservative state.
Having pushed the gerrymander of the House as far as they can, Republicans are trying to find ways to gerrymander the Senate. Incredible.
Anyway, it's beyond absurd that US citizens living in DC and Puerto Rico have no representation in Congress, but people will spend time trying to break up California in to multiple states.
Well... tough gak regarding DC. That's actually a specific carve-out and special status in the US Constitution.
...as for Puerto Rico, I've been banging on that drum for awhile to admit them into the union (as well as US V.I.).
whembly wrote: Crap... what is happening? Kanye and Chance the Rapper just broke twittah and social media.
An ego driven narcissist has an affinity for another ego driven narcissist. In terms of substance and meaning there's really nothing of any interest here at all.
There's maybe a meta-commentary to be had on how eagerly the twitterati will latch on to meaningless nonsense and ignore the actual important issues of the day, but I think we all already knew that.
whembly wrote: Crap... what is happening? Kanye and Chance the Rapper just broke twittah and social media.
An ego driven narcissist has an affinity for another ego driven narcissist. In terms of substance and meaning there's really nothing of any interest here at all.
There's maybe a meta-commentary to be had on how eagerly the twitterati will latch on to meaningless nonsense and ignore the actual important issues of the day, but I think we all already knew that.
Man the back-in-forth sure as gak is entertaining...
My fav?
‘We are both dragon energy. He is my brother.’
Dragon Energy? He needs to trademark that for some energy drink formulation.
Technically DC, Puerto Rico, and US territories do have Congressional representation they just don't get to vote on bills which is definitely a sub-standard form of representation. DC I agree is just tough titties. I think there are valid reasons to not want to give the capitol itself a bully pulpit beyond already being the capitol.
But I don't think it unreasonable that US territories should have a voting representative in the House and Senate. Someone who is responsible for not just expressing their interests on the floor but able to throw actual weight behind it. Especially in the case of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands where everyone is a born citizen. This same right should be extended to American Samoa and other territories by default.
The weirdest thing about the media fuss around Kanye is he didn't even vote in 2016. We line in a world where the political opinions of one non-voter are seen as more worthy of discussion than the 170,00 actual votes just cast in the Arizona special election. Bleh.
Anyhow, Republican held on to AZ-8, but that's not the story. Hell, the story isn't even the super weird sex scandal that caused the incumbent to resign and create this special election. Rather, the story here is that while the Republican, Debbie Lesko, managed a 5 point win over Democrat Hiral Tipirneni, this was another election showing an enormous swing to the Democrats. AZ 8 is deeply Republican, the district backed Trump by 21 points, Romney by 25 and McCain by 22 points. Place those results against the national lean in those elections, and it's a +25 Republican district, and only gave a perfectly okay, generic Republican a 5 point win over a perfectly okay, generic Democrat.
This follows a trend that is showing that maybe something really huge is coming in the mid-terms. Going back to April 2017, Democrats put up some really promising signs, Kansas 4th was Republican +29, and the Democrat came within 6. That result produced a lot of Democratic hope for Georgia's 6th, especially among the internet's loudest progressives, but it flubbed and Dems only over-performed the electorate's lean by +6 and couldn't flip the seat. But a much less publicised race in SC-5 happened the same day, and while Dems didn't flip that either they outperformed the lean by 16. Then there was a Utah special that produced barely any Dem overperformance and remained very comfortably Republican. The next special election was the Alabama senate, the Roy Moore special. Moore is likely responsible for a lot of what happened, but it was still a +31 overperformance for the Democrats, even if you give half of that to Moore it was still a +15 for Democrats. PA-18 followed that, and showed it wasn't just a Roy Moore thing, it was a Republican +21 district that Dems flipped. And now we move to Tuesday's election in Arizona, a +20 Democrat overpeformance.
So in order we have Dem results beating the electorate lean by; 23, 16, 6+16, 3, 31, 22 and finally 20.
Not only are these huge overperformances in themselves, the trend is growing. People have noted for a while that generic DvR polls have stagnated around +7 for the Dems, which is only enough for a narrow Dem win in the House given the gerrymander. But its interesting that Dem lead of +7 has been stagnant since about the beginning of the year, while the results in the special elections have shown steady improvement from April last year until now, a gain of about +10 in that time. What I think we're seeing is partisanship puts a hard cap on stated voting preference, which doesn't account for voter enthusiasm. So while most people are locked in to their party and that makes it hard to move people's stated preference, the effect of Trump and Republican actions in government have had a big effect on likely voter turnout, which the generic poll can't really account for. And over the course of the last year and a bit its likely there's been a steady, cumulative process of the less enthusiastic Republican voters backing off from politics, while the less enthusiatic Democratic voters have been slowly drawn in.
Nothing of means November is already decided, but it does hint that the result in November could be unlike anything we've seen in modern history. Even if we assume the overperformance trend stops at +20 and we then knock it back 5 points for the anti-incumbency advantage of special elections, we're still looking at +15. The Republican wave in 2010 was +7. The Democatic wave in 2006 was +8. If this is really something like +15 then holy gak.
But sure, let's talk about Kanye
whembly wrote: Well... tough gak regarding DC. That's actually a specific carve-out and special status in the US Constitution.
The legal and constitutional weirdness it would take to get California split up is at least as bad as the constitutional amendment to get DC their representation in Congress. At least with DC there's an idea of what you would have to do to get people their votes. With California there isn't even a clear idea of what you would have to do, let alone why you would do it.
...as for Puerto Rico, I've been banging on that drum for awhile to admit them into the union (as well as US V.I.).
I know
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Man the back-in-forth sure as gak is entertaining...
I don't know, to me its like the Charlie Sheen thing. I read it and I laugh, and then I feel really bad that I laughed at a person with some serious mental health issues going on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: DC I agree is just tough titties. I think there are valid reasons to not want to give the capitol itself a bully pulpit beyond already being the capitol.
Do you think any of those reasons are enough to overcome the idea that every citizen should get to vote in someone to represent them in the nation's government?
LordofHats wrote: DC I agree is just tough titties. I think there are valid reasons to not want to give the capitol itself a bully pulpit beyond already being the capitol.
Do you think any of those reasons are enough to overcome the idea that every citizen should get to vote in someone to represent them in the nation's government?
whembly wrote: ...any plan whereby the government can be more responsive and aligned to their constituents ought to be a net gain as a whole, no matter how one would look at it.
The problem, to me, is the lack of representation felt by rural California is nowhere out of the ordinary in modern US politics. It's just another instance of the city/rural split. In this case the city strongly dominates the rural so conservatives happen to be hyper-sensitive to it, but is it really any different to Austin (and also sort Houston) being dominated by the rest of Texas?
If it's sufficient to split up California, then how can the same logic not be used to split most blue cities from the red rural counties that surround them?
The sheer number of people is a factor, if not the biggest factor. A split of California would benefit more people than splitting other states (many times more) but also alleviate governing difficulties caused by the state having to manage so many people. Finally there are a number of differences to account for between northern and southern California; culture (its more than just rural vs city), environment, demographics, sheer landmass, etc. What I feel isn't going to work is trying to split things so the populations are equal; it should be a split between northern and southen because that will benefit the people of the state best. In particular, as a resident of San Diego I find it laughable that LA should be in a different state.
But it's all kinda moot since it isn't happening any time soon, if ever.
Yes, yes GOP screwing over the poor whatever, the real news is that Carson might come close to actually doing something (I'm not being sarcastic). It really highlights how pathetic his performance has been, and I don't say that lightly. Shows how well nominating vastly unqualified candidates works out.
Michael Cohen is pleading the 5th, claiming the civil suit against Stormy Daniels should be delayed while he was under Federal investigation.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The sheer number of people is a factor, if not the biggest factor. A split of California would benefit more people than splitting other states (many times more) but also alleviate governing difficulties caused by the state having to manage so many people. Finally there are a number of differences to account for between northern and southern California; culture (its more than just rural vs city), environment, demographics, sheer landmass, etc. What I feel isn't going to work is trying to split things so the populations are equal; it should be a split between northern and southen because that will benefit the people of the state best. In particular, as a resident of San Diego I find it laughable that LA should be in a different state.
I get that. I mean California has double the population of my entire country And I'm happy to accept the cultural differences as an argument. But in terms of governing difficulties I think you should be wary about extending that argument too far without considering the benefits - scale means if something terrible happens, like fire or drought, or an earthquake, then the unaffected parts of the state can bankroll the recovery.
But it's all kinda moot since it isn't happening any time soon, if ever.
Yes, yes GOP screwing over the poor whatever, the real news is that Carson might come close to actually doing something (I'm not being sarcastic). It really highlights how pathetic his performance has been, and I don't say that lightly. Shows how well nominating vastly unqualified candidates works out.
It speaks volumes that Carson's performance, putting up a ring of friends and family between himself and the actual staff of the agency, rolling out not a single meaningful initiative in more than a year since taking the job, tried to buy a $31,000 table, demoted the woman who refused to approve the purchase, then lied about his involvement in buying the table... is still far from the most damaging of Trump's appointments.
I mean, the mayor of DC can't even decide how to spend local taxes without it passing congress, which can add riders to their local budgets if it wants, or outright block them
Congress blocked Washington DC from even being able to set up a needle exchange to tackle HIV amongst drug users, for example. Despite the provable effectiveness of such programs. When a needle exchange was finally funded, HIV transmission dropped over 80 percent.
Macron says he feels he was not able to convince Trump to continue the Iran deal. If the Iran deal actually fails in two weeks then that's going to give the US an amazing position from which to hold talks with North Korea. Who doesn't want to make deals with the guy who just broke one?
There are reports from some geological agencies that the reason Pyongyang has announced a hlt to nuclear tests is because they've damage their test site beyond use.
This is based on analysis of the aftershocks that followed the last test.
If this is true, Kim Jong-Un is simply making a virtue out of necessity. There's no guarantee he won't renege on whatever deal he may reach.
CA breaking up into smaller states isn't impossible but it's never going to be allowed to divorce itself from the US simply due to the strategic importance and all the military bases and assets there. CA is home to a huge number of naval and air force bases along with most of the strategic bomber wings and anti nuclear defenses, which is something too valuable to national security to simply allow to drift off. The state budget is a complete disaster and there's no way that an independent CA could shoulder the cost of maintaining those defense assets, which is vital given that they are one of the prime targets for anything launched from China or North Korea. Even if they could swing enough political muscle to remove the state from the US would be suicide as they are entirely dependent on federal aide and defense funding.
Also if they go independent they are doubly screwed due to their water needs, which neighboring states are a primary provider for. The state has a lot of resources but the population is way too high for the state to simply walk away from being connected to the rest of the US. It's a nice pipe dream for Hollywood though.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Macron says he feels he was not able to convince Trump to continue the Iran deal. If the Iran deal actually fails in two weeks then that's going to give the US an amazing position from which to hold talks with North Korea. Who doesn't want to make deals with the guy who just broke one?
I wonder, has Putin said anything about the Iran deal? Russia is part of it, too, and I wonder what Trump would say if Putin spoke strongly in support of it now.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Macron says he feels he was not able to convince Trump to continue the Iran deal. If the Iran deal actually fails in two weeks then that's going to give the US an amazing position from which to hold talks with North Korea. Who doesn't want to make deals with the guy who just broke one?
I wonder, has Putin said anything about the Iran deal? Russia is part of it, too, and I wonder what Trump would say if Putin spoke strongly in support of it now.
Putin has publically supported the Iran deal these past few weeks and has warned the US against withdrawing from it.
Trump is stuck between his campaign promises, support base and admin hardliners.
Trump is stuck between his campaign promises, support base and admin hardliners.
Yeah, but he's a Master Negotiator, so he'll be fine, yeah?? He just loves to talk about how great he is (at negotiating), and even wrote a book on the subject so I'm sure this will all work out just fine for him.
stanman wrote: CA breaking up into smaller states isn't impossible but it's never going to be allowed to divorce itself from the US simply due to the strategic importance and all the military bases and assets there. CA is home to a huge number of naval and air force bases along with most of the strategic bomber wings and anti nuclear defenses, which is something too valuable to national security to simply allow to drift off. The state budget is a complete disaster and there's no way that an independent CA could shoulder the cost of maintaining those defense assets, which is vital given that they are one of the prime targets for anything launched from China or North Korea. Even if they could swing enough political muscle to remove the state from the US would be suicide as they are entirely dependent on federal aide and defense funding.
Also if they go independent they are doubly screwed due to their water needs, which neighboring states are a primary provider for. The state has a lot of resources but the population is way too high for the state to simply walk away from being connected to the rest of the US. It's a nice pipe dream for Hollywood though.
This is a harsh and misleading summary of California's situation. The nation is a net tax contributor and the budget is not a disaster, that military land would still be managed by the US (much like bases in all of the other foreign contries around the world) and the rest of the country would be pretty dam motivated to keep sending water given they need the agriculture it supports. So while the conclusion that California won't be leaving is accurate, the reasons you gave aren't why.
The rest of the US is a food exporter. If they break off they are just another competitor. Plus nation's play hardball when regions rebel. Expect LA to return to desert very shortly.
So Jackson is done before he ever gets started (echos of Harriet Meier ring through the halls), Cohen takes the Fif while Trump distances himself from Cohen on Fox and Friends, and Pruitt still remains...for now, we'll see how today goes for him.
Pruitt appears to be arguing that he needed his soundproof privacy booth to have secured communications for classified material, though such facilities exist within the EPA headquarters building outside of his personal office.
This raises a question for me...what possible classified activity would the civilian EPA be involved in, especially that would require these sorts of security measures?
This raises a question for me...what possible classified activity would the civilian EPA be involved in, especially that would require these sorts of security measures?
Espionage by the most mortal of enemies, I speak of course about the Planeteers.
This raises a question for me...what possible classified activity would the civilian EPA be involved in, especially that would require these sorts of security measures?
Espionage by the most mortal of enemies, I speak of course about the Planeteers.
On the one hand, I love the reference. On the other...I could actually see this being put forward as a legitimate response by this administration...
I gotta admit, the GOP's Zerg Rush Assault tactics with wave after wave of scandal appears to be effective in the short term. It's hard to keep track of all the fethery, when "fethery, fethery everywhere" is the order of the day.
Frazzled wrote: The rest of the US is a food exporter. If they break off they are just another competitor. Plus nation's play hardball when regions rebel. Expect LA to return to desert very shortly.
Nah, since much of this Caliexit/break-up crap is funded by Russia I am sure if the state did break away we could sell our luxury items to them and or China. Plus Russia or China would LOVE to have influence on the western shore of North America. Maybe little green men would be hanging out on our beaches eating tacos.
But I guess it wouldn't be Dakka OT without someone having a hard on while fantasizing about California's demise.
feeder wrote: I gotta admit, the GOP's Zerg Rush Assault tactics with wave after wave of scandal appears to be effective in the short term. It's hard to keep track of all the fethery, when "fethery, fethery everywhere" is the order of the day.
Huuuge scandals! Everyone tells me they are the best scandals...
This raises a question for me...what possible classified activity would the civilian EPA be involved in, especially that would require these sorts of security measures?
Espionage by the most mortal of enemies, I speak of course about the Planeteers.
On the one hand, I love the reference. On the other...I could actually see this being put forward as a legitimate response by this administration...
Someone must've slipped in Kanye's Dragon Energy in the Senate's coffee...
Mike Pompeo is confirmed 57 to 42 officially as the 70th Secretary of State. In addition to red state dems Donnelly, McCaskill, Doug Jones, Bill Nelson, Heidi Heidkamp, Joe Manchin + Angus King. Intel ranking Mark Warner votes no.
— Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) April 26, 2018
Oh... and Rick Grenell was confirmed as the next US Ambassador to Germany.
Frazzled wrote: The rest of the US is a food exporter. If they break off they are just another competitor. Plus nation's play hardball when regions rebel. Expect LA to return to desert very shortly.
Frazzled wrote: The rest of the US is a food exporter. If they break off they are just another competitor. Plus nation's play hardball when regions rebel. Expect LA to return to desert very shortly.
I'm no political analyst, but I think I've narrowed this down to a couple of likely explanations:
1. He's doing this on purpose. I mean, deliberately train wrecking. It seems plausible not because I know of motive, but because it's so far outside reasonable that it is actually getting less plausible that he's that clueless, simply because he'd probably not be quite SO GOOD at train wrecking this consistently well if he was utterly inept but trying to keep it together. A person might be totally inept at cooking, but still know that you can't heat food by putting it inside their refrigerator.
2. None of what I experience is real because I am actually utterly insane. None of this is happening, and I'm scrawling this message on tile floor in purple crayon.
There's still any number of other explanations for what is going on, but I think they're vastly less likely.
daedalus wrote: I'm no political analyst, but I think I've narrowed this down to a couple of likely explanations:
1. He's doing this on purpose. I mean, deliberately train wrecking. It seems plausible not because I know of motive, but because it's so far outside reasonable that it is actually getting less plausible that he's that clueless, simply because he'd probably not be quite SO GOOD at train wrecking this consistently well if he was utterly inept but trying to keep it together. A person might be totally inept at cooking, but still know that you can't heat food by putting it inside their refrigerator.
2. None of what I experience is real because I am actually utterly insane. None of this is happening, and I'm scrawling this message on tile floor in purple crayon.
There's still any number of other explanations for what is going on, but I think they're vastly less likely.
re: #1 I think he has enough self-awareness such that he's doing this on purpose, or at least exacerbate it to keep up the appearance of chaos, to actually hide some of the real incompetency of his presidency.
Yeah, I've seen the simulation thing before. I'd accept that as a substitute for insanity conditionally so long as we accept that this is part of the simulation. The important part is that, while it seems real by all appearances, it isn't actually.
I think you're probably pretty spot on with number 1 though. I'd definitely keep that most likely. At least at this point. I'm gonna go spend some time this weekend to trying to divide by zero and putting mirrors face to face just to really stress test number two as much as I know how to.
I don't think there is any hiding the incompetence of the Trump presidency. Simply put, the situation is that 30% of the people and media are desperate not t admit the incompetence, and will seize on any excuse to deny it.
Also the normal run of things means that occasionally something happens that isn't obviously due to Trump being utterly incompetent, and this offers a few holdfasts to the Trumpists.
daedalus wrote: I'm no political analyst, but I think I've narrowed this down to a couple of likely explanations:
1. He's doing this on purpose. I mean, deliberately train wrecking. It seems plausible not because I know of motive, but because it's so far outside reasonable that it is actually getting less plausible that he's that clueless, simply because he'd probably not be quite SO GOOD at train wrecking this consistently well if he was utterly inept but trying to keep it together. A person might be totally inept at cooking, but still know that you can't heat food by putting it inside their refrigerator.
2. None of what I experience is real because I am actually utterly insane. None of this is happening, and I'm scrawling this message on tile floor in purple crayon.
There's still any number of other explanations for what is going on, but I think they're vastly less likely.
re: #1 I think he has enough self-awareness such that he's doing this on purpose, or at least exacerbate it to keep up the appearance of chaos, to actually hide some of the real incompetency of his presidency.
I think a lot of this stems from even though Trump chose to run and even though I'm sure on some level he really did want to win the election he and his staff never really prepared for winning. I really don't think Trump ever took time to examine everything that's involved with being PotUS, assembling his cabinet, filling all the Federal positions and governing. He's not even connected to the Republican Party that much, sure he's got buddies who work at Fox News and are pundits and he's donates money to politicians that he wants to attend his wedding but Trump's never been involved with the Party establishment, he even ran against them in his primary campaign. Consequently Trump was both unprepared to do the job and was already in conflict with the Party that was supposed to be holding it all together. Trump's not the type of person to just rubber stamp whatever the GOP wants him to do, his ego is way too big for that. So right from the start there was constant conflict with nominations between people Trump felt he could trust, people the GOP thought would advance their policies/agenda and people the Republicans in the Senate were willing to confirm which created a total gak show (and that's just for the positions that everyone knows about like the Cabinet, I'm sure Trump doesn't even give a feth about lesser positions like ambassadorships, etc.). Trump is pretty much salesman so when he flounders he just starts to bloviate, running his mouth to hide his ignorance or incompetence and through gak against the wall to see what sticks, anything to distract people and help him spin the situation to the outcome he wants. With the current 24/7 news cycle and social setting in the US this strategy actually works pretty well for Trump since in the time it takes a person to learn about one scandal/issue six more crop up and fill up the news cycle with more noise. Are the teacher in Oklahoma still striking? Who's the current Secretary of State? Are we about to launch nukes at NK or are we about to initiate peace talks? Did the FBI arrest anyone with ties to Trump today? Etc.
In a way it's a lot like this thread. Every few pages the discussion becomes completely different.
Interesting to note that Fox basically hung up when Trump started to rant about Mueller, presumably because he was likely to incriminate himself there, like he did with Stormy and Cohen minutes before.
I wonder why one of America's leading news outlets would sacrifice such a massive scoop?
daedalus wrote: I'm no political analyst, but I think I've narrowed this down to a couple of likely explanations:
1. He's doing this on purpose. I mean, deliberately train wrecking. It seems plausible not because I know of motive, but because it's so far outside reasonable that it is actually getting less plausible that he's that clueless, simply because he'd probably not be quite SO GOOD at train wrecking this consistently well if he was utterly inept but trying to keep it together. A person might be totally inept at cooking, but still know that you can't heat food by putting it inside their refrigerator.
2. None of what I experience is real because I am actually utterly insane. None of this is happening, and I'm scrawling this message on tile floor in purple crayon.
There's still any number of other explanations for what is going on, but I think they're vastly less likely.
you missed the big one...
That being, no, you're not insane, and yes, these people really are that stupid.
daedalus wrote: I'm no political analyst, but I think I've narrowed this down to a couple of likely explanations:
1. He's doing this on purpose. I mean, deliberately train wrecking. It seems plausible not because I know of motive, but because it's so far outside reasonable that it is actually getting less plausible that he's that clueless, simply because he'd probably not be quite SO GOOD at train wrecking this consistently well if he was utterly inept but trying to keep it together. A person might be totally inept at cooking, but still know that you can't heat food by putting it inside their refrigerator.
2. None of what I experience is real because I am actually utterly insane. None of this is happening, and I'm scrawling this message on tile floor in purple crayon.
Not gonna lie, I shut it off about 18 seconds in, the dumb started to hurt.
"There is the White house, and inside the white house is the President of the United States, Donald Trump."
Thanks Fox News, you just gave up the location of the president to all of those dirty rat commies!
I didn't agree with a good deal of Obama's policies, but I do miss the class that he carried himself with, the proper grammar too. I'd say the biggest thing that frustrates me is that Trump doesn't act in a manner that our head of state (and the free world) should. I get that that is part of what got him elected, but its old, and he's making us look absolutely ridiculous. His horrid policy decisions could be mitigated if he only kept his thumbs in his pockets and used complete sentences, at least do a decent job selling us these bad ideas.
I don't know about that. These past 70 years of Pax Americana have been some of the safest and most prosperous in recorded history. (provided you don't try and elect a socialist government, or be brown and live on top of valuable resources)
feeder wrote: I don't know about that. These past 70 years of Pax Americana have been some of the safest and most prosperous in recorded history. (provided you don't try and elect a socialist government, or be brown and live on top of valuable resources)
I don't intend to comment on the last 70 years in either direction, I'm just speaking in the context of now. The US needs to better learn to be a member of a team rather than a manager with subordinates.
"There is the White house, and inside the white house is the President of the United States, Donald Trump."
Thanks Fox News, you just gave up the location of the president to all of those dirty rat commies!
I didn't agree with a good deal of Obama's policies, but I do miss the class that he carried himself with, the proper grammar too. I'd say the biggest thing that frustrates me is that Trump doesn't act in a manner that our head of state (and the free world) should. I get that that is part of what got him elected, but its old, and he's making us look absolutely ridiculous. His horrid policy decisions could be mitigated if he only kept his thumbs in his pockets and used complete sentences, at least do a decent job selling us these bad ideas.
Watching Trump on Fox & Friends try to throw Cohen under the bus, miss and actually fall under the bus himself, I'm left to wonder if the investigation of Trump would have been possible if Trump wasn't an incredible idiot. While we don't know what Mueller has or how he got it, all the stuff that's public is out there largely because of the incredible self-owns from Trump.
feeder wrote: I gotta admit, the GOP's Zerg Rush Assault tactics with wave after wave of scandal appears to be effective in the short term. It's hard to keep track of all the fethery, when "fethery, fethery everywhere" is the order of the day.
That's exactly what's happening. Paul Ryan fired the House Chaplain Rev. Patrick Conroy. Well, he requested Conroy's resignation, which is the same thing. It's the first time in the history of the House that the chaplain has been sacked. Ryan has not given a reason, but it's widely known it's because of Conroy's politics do not align with Ryan's. For instance, as the tax cut was debated in the House, Conroy's prayer to open the House included 'may their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under the new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans'.
So that's Ryan just straight up rejecting religious freedom and respect for its institutions and independence, and it's barely a story today, and I doubt it will be a story at all tomorrow. But then consider if it was 2009 in an Obama administration and Pelosi was sacking the House Chaplain, this would be a big story. It would still be getting raised today. But in the Trump administration, it's maybe story #6 today, because god damn there's just so many disasters going on at any one time.
Want another one? Does anyone even remember Jason Miller? He was the guy lined up to be Trump's Communications Director. That's the role that was instead filled by Sean Spicer, Mike Dubke, Sean Spicer Again, Anthony Scaramucci, Hope Hicks and now no-one. Miller pulled out before his nomination when it broke that he had been having an affair with another Trump staffer, AJ Delgado, and she was pregnant with their child. Miller's actual wife was also pregnant with his child at the time, because Trump people are the classiest of people. Anyhow, that's a long forgotten scandal that barely even made news at the time, except it's now resurfacing because Miller and Delgado are in court fighting for custody of the child. Included in this dispute is Delgado's summary of a conversation she had with Miller, in which Miller said the moon landing was faked. So as well as having the morals of a cat on heat, Miller was also a brain addled conspiracy theorist nutjob. For any other president, bringing a nut like in to his inner circle would be a serious scandal. For Trump its barely even news, it just sounds like what we expect from Trump people.
And here's another one. Trump's first contact with the Vietnamese Prime Minister wasn't arranged through the State Department. Instead it was organised by one of Trump's personal lawyers, Marc Kasowitz. And it just so happens Kasowitz' other client happens to be a casino group with major interests in Vietnam. So if you want close ties with the US, don't bother with nonsense like diplomatic outreaches through the State Dept, what you need to do is make sure you're on friendly, generous terms with Trump's coterie. Again, in any other administration that'd be a major scandal. It'd certainly produce an ethics investigation. With Trump it's barely news.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: I'm no political analyst, but I think I've narrowed this down to a couple of likely explanations:
1. He's doing this on purpose. I mean, deliberately train wrecking. It seems plausible not because I know of motive, but because it's so far outside reasonable that it is actually getting less plausible that he's that clueless, simply because he'd probably not be quite SO GOOD at train wrecking this consistently well if he was utterly inept but trying to keep it together. A person might be totally inept at cooking, but still know that you can't heat food by putting it inside their refrigerator.
2. None of what I experience is real because I am actually utterly insane. None of this is happening, and I'm scrawling this message on tile floor in purple crayon.
There's still any number of other explanations for what is going on, but I think they're vastly less likely.
Trump has to some extent continued his carnival barker attitude, just throwing out nonsense, partly to whip up his base, but mostly just to create headlines for the sake of headlines. But there's also another factor in play as well, the Dunning–Kruger effect. That's the phenomenon where people with very low skill at a task are also really bad at knowing who is good at it, including themselves. So bad drivers are also really bad at assessing who the bad drivers are, and will often falsely assess themselves as very good drivers.
Trump is terrible at being president and he's terrible protecting a criminal conspiracy. But because he's so bad at those things, he's also bad at assessing who is good at them, and so wrongly assesses himself at being really at them. As an added bonus, he also wrongly assesses other people, which is why he's employed so many people to his personal staff and to his administration who have been so remarkably incompetent.
Dunning-Kruger is leading the free world.
Prestor Jon wrote: I think a lot of this stems from even though Trump chose to run and even though I'm sure on some level he really did want to win the election he and his staff never really prepared for winning. I really don't think Trump ever took time to examine everything that's involved with being PotUS, assembling his cabinet, filling all the Federal positions and governing.
Sort of. The work was done, but Trump and his senior most staff had no respect for the scale of the work they were taking on, and as well as that internal politics always prioritizes over governance. And it was Chris Christie who did the planning for staffing a Trump Whitehouse, so when Kushner ran his hatchet job on Christie, all of the work of Christie's team got thrown out, and instead they just started winging it on recruitment.
So as much as Trump and team didn't expect to win, that wasn't what caused their lack of preparation. Rather, what caused the lack of preparation was a lack of appreciation for the scale of work involved in operating a presidential administration, combined with a toxic culture that prevented people from actually getting with just doing the work.
He's not even connected to the Republican Party that much, sure he's got buddies who work at Fox News and are pundits and he's donates money to politicians that he wants to attend his wedding but Trump's never been involved with the Party establishment, he even ran against them in his primary campaign. Consequently Trump was both unprepared to do the job and was already in conflict with the Party that was supposed to be holding it all together. Trump's not the type of person to just rubber stamp whatever the GOP wants him to do, his ego is way too big for that.
We have actual, literal quotes of Trump saying 'you just put something in front of me and I'll sign it'. Repeal and replace was run knowing whatever could get through the senate would be signed by Trump. The tax cut was the same, and what was passed through the senate was accepted and signed by Trump. The only time there was any pushback at all came with the DREAMERS, where Trump once again promised to sign anything, but then found John Kelly and Stephen Miller were combining to sink the bi-partisan deal, and instead trying to push through their own bill that tightly cut immigration quotas.
There is friction between Trump and Republicans, but there is also a working arrangement between the two groups, that's accounted for all the basic government function we've seen in the last year and a half. That deal is for Trump to rubber stamp Republican legislation (if it ever passes), and put up conservative judges, and in return congressional Republicans will look the other way on Trump's many ethical failures and breaches of the public trust.
Trump is pretty much salesman so when he flounders he just starts to bloviate, running his mouth to hide his ignorance or incompetence and through gak against the wall to see what sticks, anything to distract people and help him spin the situation to the outcome he wants. With the current 24/7 news cycle and social setting in the US this strategy actually works pretty well for Trump since in the time it takes a person to learn about one scandal/issue six more crop up and fill up the news cycle with more noise. Are the teacher in Oklahoma still striking? Who's the current Secretary of State? Are we about to launch nukes at NK or are we about to initiate peace talks? Did the FBI arrest anyone with ties to Trump today? Etc.
Yep, that sums up that part of the mess up nicely.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Eh I think the US needed to be knocked off it's high horse on the world stage anyways.q
The US has been far from perfect, but every previous world power has been much worse. While there's always room to improve how the US behaves around the world, and note that Trump is the opposite of that improvement, we should be very wary of thinking if the US dropped back from power the vacuum would be filled by a better behaving country or countries.
We have a habit, I think, of assuming powerlessness is virtue.
daedalus wrote: I'm no political analyst, but I think I've narrowed this down to a couple of likely explanations:
1. He's doing this on purpose. I mean, deliberately train wrecking. It seems plausible not because I know of motive, but because it's so far outside reasonable that it is actually getting less plausible that he's that clueless, simply because he'd probably not be quite SO GOOD at train wrecking this consistently well if he was utterly inept but trying to keep it together. A person might be totally inept at cooking, but still know that you can't heat food by putting it inside their refrigerator.
2. None of what I experience is real because I am actually utterly insane. None of this is happening, and I'm scrawling this message on tile floor in purple crayon.
There's still any number of other explanations for what is going on, but I think they're vastly less likely.
Trump has to some extent continued his carnival barker attitude, just throwing out nonsense, partly to whip up his base, but mostly just to create headlines for the sake of headlines. But there's also another factor in play as well, the Dunning–Kruger effect. That's the phenomenon where people with very low skill at a task are also really bad at knowing who is good at it, including themselves. So bad drivers are also really bad at assessing who the bad drivers are, and will often falsely assess themselves as very good drivers.
Trump is terrible at being president and he's terrible protecting a criminal conspiracy. But because he's so bad at those things, he's also bad at assessing who is good at them, and so wrongly assesses himself at being really at them. As an added bonus, he also wrongly assesses other people, which is why he's employed so many people to his personal staff and to his administration who have been so remarkably incompetent.
Dunning-Kruger is leading the free world.
Oh.
Can I just be insane instead? Rest of my life in a padded cell, everything is cool outside? I'm fine with that if that's what it takes.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Eh I think the US needed to be knocked off it's high horse on the world stage anyways.
The US has been far from perfect, but every previous world power has been much worse. While there's always room to improve how the US behaves around the world, and note that Trump is the opposite of that improvement, we should be very wary of thinking if the US dropped back from power the vacuum would be filled by a better behaving country or countries.
We have a habit, I think, of assuming powerlessness is virtue.
I didn't mean it that way. As a mentioned above, its more that the US needs to learn to be a team player rather than a manager with subordinates. It needs to recognize that while it's fine to help the US doesn't run the world. Also it's a matter of knocking American arrogance down a peg, on the world stage but more so on the domestic one. We need to stop acting like we are the best at everything because that is a gigantic obstacle in US culture that prevents us from self-analyzing to any widespread degree. Without that we will continue to be held back from truly capitalizing on the many, many factors that this country has going for it.
Imagine, for instance, that we accepted how our system to college tuition doesn't work and that we need to devote more finances to helping students pay for college. Not even addressing grade school or the quality of classes, or anything, just paying for it. The benefit would be monumental because the country has a monumental amount of resources available in it's colleges. But we don't bother, because capitalism-money-before-morality is obviously the best since that's what we do. And it holds us back.
cuda1179 wrote: I was looking at some of the "split CA three ways" plans. From what I was reading, Democrats would maintain the two senators from the current California, possibly pick up two from one new state (although that state could be purple and flip-floppy), and the republicans would gain two senators from a conservative state.
Having pushed the gerrymander of the House as far as they can, Republicans are trying to find ways to gerrymander the Senate. Incredible.
Anyway, it's beyond absurd that US citizens living in DC and Puerto Rico have no representation in Congress.
When it comes to Puerto Rico, I have mixed feelings. Should they have representation? Yes, I think they should. They likely would if they'd decide to become a state. They've had several votes on this and their population has decided again and again that being an actual state is not something that is desirable. They rather enjoy their limbo status. They're effectively the US, while still being their own country.
cuda1179 wrote: When it comes to Puerto Rico, I have mixed feelings. Should they have representation? Yes, I think they should. They likely would if they'd decide to become a state. They've had several votes on this and their population has decided again and again that being an actual state is not something that is desirable. They rather enjoy their limbo status. They're effectively the US, while still being their own country.
Actually in the two most recent votes (granted, one of them was officially boycotted by the anti-statehood party) Puerto Rico voted for statehood. Congress just hasn't done their part yet.
New Quinnipac poll today - only 37% of Republicans say the news media is an important part of a democracy. 51% of Republican voters say the news media is the enemy of the people. That's pretty terrifying, but on the plus side only 13% support firing Mueller, and only 25% of Republicans support it. However, if Trump did do it, only 42% of people think firing Mueller should lead to impeachment, this is so low because only 6% of Republicans believe it should lead to impeachment, which means people don't think Trump should fire Mueller, but if he does do it people have no appetite to hold him to account for it.
Another interesting result - 38% support beginning impeachment if Democrats take control of the House in the mid-terms. Among Democrats its 71%, but the only sub-category where it is majority popular is among black people, among other ethnic groups, age brackets and genders impeachment is the minority position at this stage. This hints at a problem for Democrats if they take the House - there will be a big push to begin impeachment, but really until Mueller releases his findings Democrats will have neither the evidence nor the public support to make it happen.
Also, 63% support marijuana legalisation. Among Republicans its 41-55, among all other groups (Democrats, men, women, white, black etc) it was majority popular.
Also, how did Trump's call in to Fox & Friends go today? Here's the before and after of the hosts. Oh dear.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I didn't mean it that way. As a mentioned above, its more that the US needs to learn to be a team player rather than a manager with subordinates. It needs to recognize that while it's fine to help the US doesn't run the world.
True, but one problem with that is so many things really depend on the US to lead. When East Timorese independence was being sabotaged by Indonesia, Australia really wanted to put troops in and stabilize. But we couldn't do it without US backing, because we either had to turn up in port hoping our unarmoured troop carriers wouldn't come under fire, or use US troop carriers. The US took some time to come on board, and we actually got kind of annoyed that the country who'd actually invested in force projection wasn't immediately jumping on board to help us with our special project.
I agree that the US shouldn't be the leader in everything everywhere, but getting to that point will mean other countries investing in capabilities so operations aren't always dependent on the US. One good thing about Trump as president is it is prompting democracies to start looking at protecting their own national interests without US support, because the US can't be seen as the reliable ally it once was.
Also it's a matter of knocking American arrogance down a peg, on the world stage but more so on the domestic one. We need to stop acting like we are the best at everything because that is a gigantic obstacle in US culture that prevents us from self-analyzing to any widespread degree.
The US is special at thinking its special. You mention tertiary education and that's a good one - the US system is bonkers, its stupidly expensive and pushing so much debt on to 20 year olds has massive impacts flowing down the economy. But the idea of looking at other places and seeing how they do things is rejected, because there's always a reason to think the US is special and pretend things that work elsewhere could never work in the US. Similar issues are health, and guns of course.
That said, the US is also very good at a lot of things. It isn't just good luck that each new blue sky industry has taken off in the US, and that's still true today. There are reasons that Facebook and Google are American.
Thing is, Seb, there's a difference between the US leading the world and the US simply telling the world what to do. A boss isn't the same as being a leader, and far too often our politicians today just want to be the boss.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Thing is, Seb, there's a difference between the US leading the world and the US simply telling the world what to do. A boss isn't the same as being a leader, and far too often our politicians today just want to be the boss.
You're fired!
The Auld Grump - or sometimes they think that they are still on reality TV....
Huh... there may be an end of armistice on the Korean peninsula.
That's good right?
I saw part of the ceremony on CNN last night while I was at work, it honestly felt like the sort of thing that'll be in history books. The war's over and it seems like they have a shot at fixing things.
And all it took was for the US to become so unreliable/irrational that they couldn't be counted on anymore.
I don't think Trump's awfulness can take credit for this one. The Kims now have a working nuke. They don't need the constant war footing to avoid being toppled by outside forces.
Hopefully this is the real deal and the people of North Korea can achieve a better basic standard of living.
feeder wrote: I don't think Trump's awfulness can take credit for this one. The Kims now have a working nuke. They don't need the constant war footing to avoid being toppled by outside forces.
Hopefully this is the real deal and the people of North Korea can achieve a better basic standard of living.
Its amazing how he can take credit for things he didn't even participate in. Still though, nothing concrete.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Thing is, Seb, there's a difference between the US leading the world and the US simply telling the world what to do. A boss isn't the same as being a leader, and far too often our politicians today just want to be the boss.
This is a much better way of putting what I was thinking into words.
That's exactly what's happening. Paul Ryan fired the House Chaplain Rev. Patrick Conroy. Well, he requested Conroy's resignation, which is the same thing. It's the first time in the history of the House that the chaplain has been sacked. Ryan has not given a reason, but it's widely known it's because of Conroy's politics do not align with Ryan's. For instance, as the tax cut was debated in the House, Conroy's prayer to open the House included 'may their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under the new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans'.
So that's Ryan just straight up rejecting religious freedom and respect for its institutions and independence, and it's barely a story today, and I doubt it will be a story at all tomorrow.
To be fair, its frontpage central news on several outlets right now. I think thay will come back to bite Ryan, and there appears to be bipartisan anger about it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its amazing how he can take credit for things he didn't even participate in. Still though, nothing concrete.
I think it's impossible to quantify to what extent Trump was responsible; saying he didn't have any responsibility seems a but too far. I think the increased pressure and possibility of military action had to have been a factor, along with that mountain collapsing.
I see a lot of people using the phrase "Leader of the Free World" on this thread. I've always found it obnoxious, but right now, after watching that "interview" (if that's what we're calling a self aggrandizing and barely coherent rant) it's outright laughable.
feeder wrote: I don't think Trump's awfulness can take credit for this one. The Kims now have a working nuke. They don't need the constant war footing to avoid being toppled by outside forces.
Hopefully this is the real deal and the people of North Korea can achieve a better basic standard of living.
Honestly?
If this peace holds, and he wants to take credit for it - undeserved as it may or may not be - I won't much care.
Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides, or the slow collapse of their economy, or Trump making a wish on the Blue Fairy - it is a chance for North Korea to move forward for the first time in longer than I have been alive.
I agree. I despise Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair, but I was delighted when they helped to negotiate the peace in Northern Ireland. Peace is always a good thing. The Korean war has been an ongoing tragedy and threat to the entire region. If we get peace, it will absolutely be worth celebrating.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its amazing how he can take credit for things he didn't even participate in. Still though, nothing concrete.
I think it's impossible to quantify to what extent Trump was responsible; saying he didn't have any responsibility seems a but too far. I think the increased pressure and possibility of military action had to have been a factor, along with that mountain collapsing.
True, but this is assuming that A) North Korea is honest, B) never planned to do this if they had successfully developed nukes without Trump and C) that a deal actually gets made. Trump meanwhile is taking credit for ending the Korean War, that isn't even over. Meanwhile Moon is doing all the actual work.
So far what we have is some showy symbolism, but nothing concrete.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheAuldGrump wrote: Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides
Small correction, NK hasn't lost its nuclear program, on the contrary it has developed nuclear weapons. The only thing lost is the ability to test even heavier devices for now, hence Kim declaring an end to nuclear testing in public.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides, or the slow collapse of their economy, or Trump making a wish on the Blue Fairy - it is a chance for North Korea to move forward for the first time in longer than I have been alive.
It is worth celebrating.
Yup, pretty much this. Who owns which piece of it isn't really important. Of course, as DoF said below, lets see if the deal actually holds. We've seen this before and it's gone nowhere.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides
Small correction, NK hasn't lost its nuclear program, on the contrary it has developed nuclear weapons. The only thing lost is the ability to test even heavier devices for now, hence Kim declaring an end to nuclear testing in public.
Small correction - that is still a loss, if only temporary.
The program is more than just the development of the bomb, testing and delivery packages are just as much a part of the program as making the bomb - and loss of the testing site loses them the program until they can create and maintain a new testing site.
Semantics - but important. Losing the site after demonstrating the capability to create nuclear weapons actually makes them more vulnerable, as there is cause and a deadline to move against them.
They went from something their neighbors might ignore to something that has become a viable threat.
The Auld Grump - in addition, the nuclear tests are themselves used as a means of intimidation - it is possible that NK has been testing each of their bombs following completion, with no appreciable arsenal in reserve.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides
Small correction, NK hasn't lost its nuclear program, on the contrary it has developed nuclear weapons. The only thing lost is the ability to test even heavier devices for now, hence Kim declaring an end to nuclear testing in public.
Small correction - that is still a loss, if only temporary.
The program is more than just the development of the bomb, testing and delivery packages are just as much a part of the program as making the bomb - and loss of the testing site loses them the program until they can create and maintain a new testing site.
Semantics - but important. Losing the site after demonstrating the capability to create nuclear weapons actually makes them more vulnerable, as there is cause and a deadline to move against them.
They went from something their neighbors might ignore to something that has become a viable threat.
The Auld Grump - in addition, the nuclear tests are themselves used as a means of intimidation - it is possible that NK has been testing each of their bombs following completion, with no appreciable arsenal in reserve.
It a loss of the site, not the program as you said. This isn't demonstrating the capability, they showed that capability years ago. What they have been testing is bigger devices. Miniaturization and the placement on warheads of such devices doesn't need that test site. Note that Pakistan, India and Israel developed full fledged nuclear capabilities with the same number of tests NK has now conducted. The assumption that NK doesn't have the capability now is very risky.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its amazing how he can take credit for things he didn't even participate in. Still though, nothing concrete.
I think it's impossible to quantify to what extent Trump was responsible; saying he didn't have any responsibility seems a but too far. I think the increased pressure and possibility of military action had to have been a factor, along with that mountain collapsing.
True, but this is assuming that A) North Korea is honest, B) never planned to do this if they had successfully developed nukes without Trump and C) that a deal actually gets made. Trump meanwhile is taking credit for ending the Korean War, that isn't even over. Meanwhile Moon is doing all the actual work.
So far what we have is some showy symbolism, but nothing concrete.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheAuldGrump wrote: Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides
Small correction, NK hasn't lost its nuclear program, on the contrary it has developed nuclear weapons. The only thing lost is the ability to test even heavier devices for now, hence Kim declaring an end to nuclear testing in public.
In the Korea scenario though. I think its right, symbolism means everything at this point. This is the largest gesture that's posetive in decades.
The previous have all been hostile. This is the first early movements to thr Oposite.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its amazing how he can take credit for things he didn't even participate in. Still though, nothing concrete.
I think it's impossible to quantify to what extent Trump was responsible; saying he didn't have any responsibility seems a but too far. I think the increased pressure and possibility of military action had to have been a factor, along with that mountain collapsing.
True, but this is assuming that A) North Korea is honest, B) never planned to do this if they had successfully developed nukes without Trump and C) that a deal actually gets made. Trump meanwhile is taking credit for ending the Korean War, that isn't even over. Meanwhile Moon is doing all the actual work.
So far what we have is some showy symbolism, but nothing concrete.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheAuldGrump wrote: Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides
Small correction, NK hasn't lost its nuclear program, on the contrary it has developed nuclear weapons. The only thing lost is the ability to test even heavier devices for now, hence Kim declaring an end to nuclear testing in public.
In the Korea scenario though. I think its right, symbolism means everything at this point. This is the largest gesture that's posetive in decades.
The previous have all been hostile. This is the first early movements to thr Oposite.
Symbolism means very little when it comes to real discussions and deals. This is the third time in the last three decades that NK might come to the table for serious talks. Both times it actually got into serious talks and deals those efforts collapsed a few years later. So no, its not the first positive gesture in decades. Don't count your chickens before they hatch this time around.
After all this talk about the liberal left, it’s the GOP Speaker of the House getting rid of a Christian Clergy for praying and expressing his religious opinions.
d-usa wrote: After all this talk about the liberal left, it’s the GOP Speaker of the House getting rid of a Christian Clergy for praying and expressing his religious opinions.
But cakes for gay weddings, D!
Not to be confused with butt cakes for gay weddings.
Huh... there may be an end of armistice on the Korean peninsula.
That's good right?
I saw part of the ceremony on CNN last night while I was at work, it honestly felt like the sort of thing that'll be in history books. The war's over and it seems like they have a shot at fixing things.
And all it took was for the US to become so unreliable/irrational that they couldn't be counted on anymore.
Actually it took nk nuke experience go wrong enough that mountain collapsed threatening china with radioactive fall. That made china VERY angry.
And nk is unlikely to give up nukes as that's accepting eventually whatever they do usa invades them
Tannhauser42 wrote: Thing is, Seb, there's a difference between the US leading the world and the US simply telling the world what to do. A boss isn't the same as being a leader, and far too often our politicians today just want to be the boss.
This is a much better way of putting what I was thinking into words.
Well, when you're in a respected position for a long time, it's easy for a sense of entitlement to creep in and to forget that the respect isn't the natural order of things, it was something that needed to be earned.
The correct thing to do would simply be uninvite Pence, that way everyone can be armed, as is the usual. But at the same time they don't want to show disrespect to their executive protectors. Its a giant crap sandwich, and the NRA is gonna have to take a bite.
Symbolism means very little when it comes to real discussions and deals. This is the third time in the last three decades that NK might come to the table for serious talks. Both times it actually got into serious talks and deals those efforts collapsed a few years later. So no, its not the first positive gesture in decades. Don't count your chickens before they hatch this time around.
This is correct. It would be completely consistent behavior for the DPRK to exploit the world’s hopes, get some concessions, and then go right back to thumbing its nose at the rest of the world.
Odd, I was told a armed society was a polite society.
It's almost like the NRA doesn't believe that if a shooting occurs it is good to have a load of armed "good guys" around to stop it and that such an environment would not be utter chaos and impossible to manage for law enforcement trying to respond.
The NRA knows/believes that guns cause gun violence; for years they've lobbied millions of dollars to prevent research being done on the topic. They just SAY otherwise for business reasons.
In the US there is a stong underlying mentality of 'if it makes money morality doesn't matter' that is rarely stated outright but can be seen as a subconscious thread through a lot of society's behavior.
On a related note, to cause the beggest mass shooting in US history without even injuring anyone just go to a gun show, throw a few smoke grenades, shout something in arabic, and shoot several blanks into the ground. Then hit the deck because it's gunna get bloody.
It says right in the article that this is a requirement imposed on the NRA by the Secret Service because Pence is speaking there. It is not being done because the NRA doesn’t want people to be armed at the convention it’s because they don’t want to cancel Spence’s appearance for the sake of ideological purity. On days when Pence isn’t there you can be armed at the convention.
The NRA knows/believes that guns cause gun violence; for years they've lobbied millions of dollars to prevent research being done on the topic. They just SAY otherwise for business reasons.
In the US there is a stong underlying mentality of 'if it makes money morality doesn't matter' that is rarely stated outright but can be seen as a subconscious thread through a lot of society's behavior.
On a related note, to cause the beggest mass shooting in US history without even injuring anyone just go to a gun show, throw a few smoke grenades, shout something in arabic, and shoot several blanks into the ground. Then hit the deck because it's gunna get bloody.
Guns are inanimate objects they are inert and cannot cause any actions to happen. The NRA generates income through membership dues from its 5 million members and providing services like gun safety courses and range safety officer certifications. Not sure what moral position you think the annual hunter safety class I take through the NRA violates.
The NRA generates income through membership dues from its 5 million members and providing services like gun safety courses and range safety officer certifications.
And the foreign donors and industry kickbacks of course.
But otherwise I'm sure they're paragons of virtue holding up the rights of inanimate objects that totally aren't used for interpersonal violence.
It’s as obtuse as your argument. Guns cause gun violence the same way swimming pools cause drownings. Higher saturation rates of gun ownership rates will lead to higher usage rates of guns for good and bad purposes. Please show me where the NRA is refuting that? Nobody has been shot by one of my guns and nobody has ever drowned in my pool. If I had neither then the odds of either happening would obviously be much lower but there is no causal relationship that makes it inevitable. If everyone in my town had a pool and a gun then shootings and drownings would increase even though the likelihood of either happening to a given individual wouldn’t be any greater. Not sure why you think we need congressional studies into basic math.
It says right in the article that this is a requirement imposed on the NRA by the Secret Service because Pence is speaking there. It is not being done because the NRA doesn’t want people to be armed at the convention it’s because they don’t want to cancel Spence’s appearance for the sake of ideological purity. On days when Pence isn’t there you can be armed at the convention.
The NRA knows/believes that guns cause gun violence; for years they've lobbied millions of dollars to prevent research being done on the topic. They just SAY otherwise for business reasons.
In the US there is a stong underlying mentality of 'if it makes money morality doesn't matter' that is rarely stated outright but can be seen as a subconscious thread through a lot of society's behavior.
On a related note, to cause the beggest mass shooting in US history without even injuring anyone just go to a gun show, throw a few smoke grenades, shout something in arabic, and shoot several blanks into the ground. Then hit the deck because it's gunna get bloody.
Guns are inanimate objects they are inert and cannot cause any actions to happen. The NRA generates income through membership dues from its 5 million members and providing services like gun safety courses and range safety officer certifications. Not sure what moral position you think the annual hunter safety class I take through the NRA violates.
Which is funny given their almost month long no statement when one of their own members got gunned down by the police, but he happened to be black so they just kinda shrugged and moved on. Quit trying to paint the NRA as some sort of benevolent organization, they lost that a long time ago
The NRA generates income through membership dues from its 5 million members and providing services like gun safety courses and range safety officer certifications.
And the foreign donors and industry kickbacks of course.
But otherwise I'm sure they're paragons of virtue holding up the rights of inanimate objects that totally aren't used for interpersonal violence.
The NRA doesn’t believe that guns themselves have rights. The NRA advocates for the right for people to own guns. The NRA gets donations and ad revenue from the firearms industry but if you have any evidence of actual kickback schemes with manufacturers I’d love to see it. The NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) is a registered lobbyist group and follows all of the rules and laws that govern such groups. In terms of spending on lobbying the NRA-ILA falls pretty far from the top. The NRA’s influence on US politics comes from their large membership and the tendency for gun owners to be motivated voters.
Guess what...those 'donations' ARE kickbacks. Plus the NRA are hypocrits. Anyone else who no one be armed in an area gets shouted down. But they're more than willing to do it for Pence.
skyth wrote: Guess what...those 'donations' ARE kickbacks. Plus the NRA are hypocrits. Anyone else who no one be armed in an area gets shouted down. But they're more than willing to do it for Pence.
Donations aren’t kickbacks.
The NRA is acquiescing to the security protocols of the Secret Service. This does not mean that the NRA believes in gun free zones, this is not a security protocol that the NRA endorses it is one that is being imposed on them. Pence is still going to be surrounded by armed people they’ll just be Secret Service members. Since we value the office of the Vice President we protect the Vice President with armed guards. We also value the lives of our children so the NRA supports the policy of protecting them with armed guards.
The NRA could stick to their guns (pun intended) and decide that nothing is worth the collective disarmament of their entire membership in attendance and tell Pence he can’t speak in person and to speak via video relay instead.
Instead they create heir own gun-free zone, however temporary it might be, for political convenience.
skyth wrote: Guess what...those 'donations' ARE kickbacks. Plus the NRA are hypocrits. Anyone else who no one be armed in an area gets shouted down. But they're more than willing to do it for Pence.
Donations aren’t kickbacks.
The NRA is acquiescing to the security protocols of the Secret Service. This does not mean that the NRA believes in gun free zones, this is not a security protocol that the NRA endorses it is one that is being imposed on them. Pence is still going to be surrounded by armed people they’ll just be Secret Service members. Since we value the office of the Vice President we protect the Vice President with armed guards. We also value the lives of our children so the NRA supports the policy of protecting them with armed guards.
Here is the deal, they shouldn't bend to the protocols of the Secret Service. Instead, they should politely decline to have Pence as a guest, as that violates the rights of their members to carry a firearm. It also disrupts the narrative that people are safer with more guns around. The one they are attempting to push. By doing this and bending to the protocols of the Secret Service, they are openly admitting that having fewer guns in an area is safer for people.
Same as every year, the media and the political pundits devolve in to their own inside baseball nonsense, arguing whether the comedian they hired for the White House Correspondents Dinner was too mean. It's a silly exercise, one group claims anything goes and it's just comedy, another group clutches at their pearls and claims some targets on their side were unfairly attacked, and a third group attempts to prove their centrist credentials by claiming jokes are great but just not some of these particular jokes.
The only reason its worth any comment at all is the insight it gives in to how the theater of politics and media actually works. For instance, Matt Schlapp made a big show of walking out of the dinner with his wife. He then went to twitter and feigned outrage at how 'all of us' are mocked by the elites. Schlapp was a political adviser to a president, his wife is an adviser to the current president. He regularly goes on cable news to give his opinion. If there is such a thing as an elite he is it, but it is important to put on a public show of victimhood at the hands of the 'elite' because that's the cornerstone of modern conservatism. After his big show of walking out, Schlapp and his wife went to the NBC and MSNBC after party and spent the night talking and dancing with those 'elites', of which he totally isn't one. Transparent nonsense.
Another example is Maggie Haberman, probably the highest profile Whitehouse reporter, she gets a lot of leaks from inside, and has even managed to the president angry enough to tweet about her (though he couldn't get her name right). While Wolf went after a whole range of people inside and outside the Whitehouse with off colour stuff, like saying Ivanka Trump is as useful as a used box of tampons, the only one Haberman wanted to defend was Sarah Huckabee Sanders, over a really awkward joke that Sanders used the ash from all her burned facts for eyeshadow. Haberman needed to make a show of solidarity with Sanders, because Sanders is one of Haberman's best sources. It kicked off a big debate about whether the attack on Sanders was against her appearance (it wasn't) and whether this administration has a right to be upset other people saying mean things, but that was all nothing about nothing. The whole point was Haberman making a show to keep a key source on-side, and everything around it was just theatre.
All that nonsense got me thinking about possibly the one thing I've learned from all the nonsense on twitter, since I joined. See, after the recent highschool shooting there was a call to ban semi-auto rifles, such as the AR-15. Some anti-gun people started claiming it was an assault rifle, and it was right there in the name, AR. Anti-gun people getting facts about guns wrong is nothing new. However, in response the right attacked back, pointing out this was wrong, it isn't an assault rifle and that isn't what it stands for. Fine, except a lot of really high profile conservatives went a step further, claiming there was no such thing as an assault rifle, that it was a made up term. Perhaps they were confused with 'assault weapon', which was made up for the last gun control bill. It's a mistake that can be made, but not by people who actually love guns, who spend time on the range, those people know that assault rifles are real and are the main rifle of every military force on earth. But here were dozens of conservative pundits making big claims about the importance of guns, while its clear they have no personal interest in guns at all. You could claim they were just arguing for people to have that right, even if they personally weren't interested, which would work except that wasn't the arguments they were making at all. They present as active gun users steeped in gun history, then when they speak they betray sheer ignorance of guns.
There was a recent Vox article about a young girl who after some time on reality tv was approached by some agents to become a conservative spokesperson. She explained her politics weren't actually all that conservative, certainly not conservative like they wanted, and she was told that doesn't matter, she just has to play the part. She turned it down, but you're kidding yourself if you think a really large share of these random kids dropped in to the role of spouting out the standard conservative lines are all true believers, and none of them are just doing it for the money.
This is a major dynamic in modern news coverage. Pundits making arguments just because it's their job to pretend to be the person who makes that argument, with zero interest in whether its actually true. They do this on news services that don't care that their statements are not only wrong, but not even what the pundit even actually believes. Opinion giver Jeffrey Lord got fired from CNN a while back, apparently for saying Heil Hitler in a tweet. It was a stupid, transparent firing, because the tweet was obviously sarcastic. But before being fired, Lord would routinely get on CNN and claim the most ridiculous nonsense in defense of Trump, and that never got him in trouble. No, Lord's problem was his lies were obvious and boring, and Lord himself was dull, he didn't make for good tv, interest in him was declining, and the Hitler tweet was just the excuse.
FOX News is terrible, but they rate 2 million viewers on a good night. Breitbart daily views have dropped by half since Trump won and it wasn't that large even at peak deplorable. If the weird little cult of conservative media was the only problem then there'd be no problem. But instead there's a much bigger problem, that in a world with so much media and news commentary there's hardly any actual media commentary that's genuine, let alone researched.
Michelle Wolf had one line that actually made me laugh. I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like 'CNN loves breaking news, well you guys sure did break news'. Funnily enough that's not the line anyone in the media was talking about the next day.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Thing is, Seb, there's a difference between the US leading the world and the US simply telling the world what to do. A boss isn't the same as being a leader, and far too often our politicians today just want to be the boss.
That's a really good way of putting it, I'll happily concede the point. I was caught up on a side issue of other nation's capabilities, and distracting from the main point, which you just expressed quite nicely.
Wolfblade wrote: I'm shocked that the party that puts themselves before anything else would clear their own party of any wrongdoing!
I haven't read the whole of the House Intel Committee majority report because I play miniature wargamings so I already get my full quota of self-referential, fantasy nonsense. But there's some amazing stuff in their report. For instance, these guys concluded that the attempt to build a secret line of communication to the Kremlin after the election proves that there was no collusion beforehand. That's like a mobster being caught giving an envelope full of cash to a cop, and the investigator concluding all that really proves is there wasn't any attempt at a bribe before this.
It's such obvious crap that it becomes clear that not only is it something that Republican majority can't possibly believe, it is lie that the majority doesn't expect anyone reading it to believe. These are the silliest of lies, because the liars know that anyone who is still on their side just doesn't care about truth, they just worry about allegiance to the tribe. In that dynamic, the more ridiculous lies are kind of more effective, in a funny kind of way.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, its frontpage central news on several outlets right now. I think thay will come back to bite Ryan, and there appears to be bipartisan anger about it.
True, that one actually ended up getting quite a bit of coverage, it's still going now. And even more impressively, a lot of the takes on the issue have been really perceptive. Instead of the simple 'Republican hypocrisy over religious freedom' thing I took from it, a few pieces had much more meaningful takes on the state of Republican politics when a call to include all people in the economic gain is seen as a political attack.
I was really happy to be wrong about my prediction there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I see a lot of people using the phrase "Leader of the Free World" on this thread. I've always found it obnoxious, but right now, after watching that "interview" (if that's what we're calling a self aggrandizing and barely coherent rant) it's outright laughable.
I use the phrase a bit, and that's precisely why. For me, saying Trump is the leader of the free world isn't deferential, it's a way of contrasting how we understand someone with that level of responsility should act, and the current leader does act.
“Leader of the free world” is also a title that doesn’t just mean “person that bosses the rest of the world around”. There is the age old management discussion about what it means to be a leader rather than just being a boss.
More than that though, it is also a title for the type of leader the other countries should aspire to have. The personification of our “free and democratic” country standing in contrast to dictators and leaders of corrupt and evil governments. The leader with the values that should guide all leaders of every nation, who upholds the ideals and freedoms which sets the western world apart from others where people are repressed and suffer for things we take for granted.
It's such obvious crap that it becomes clear that not only is it something that Republican majority can't possibly believe, it is lie that the majority doesn't expect anyone reading it to believe. These are the silliest of lies, because the liars know that anyone who is still on their side just doesn't care about truth, they just worry about allegiance to the tribe. In that dynamic, the more ridiculous lies are kind of more effective, in a funny kind of way.
It reminds me of the Nunes memo.
The memo produced and released by Devin Nunes, the Chairman of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that was promoted and presented as the proof of wide-spread organisation-wide corruption in the FBI and the Justice Department.
I was of the conviction that the Republicans actually had zero interest in releasing it, as it had so much more value as a propaganda tool as opposed to actually being released and subsequently fact-checked.
When released it turned out to be very long on accusations and assertions, and suspiciously short on evidence.
Yet........I regularly run into people that refer to the Nunes memo as having proven the supposed corruption in the FBI and the Justice Department.
Steelmage99 wrote: It reminds me of the Nunes memo.
The memo produced and released by Devin Nunes, the Chairman of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that was promoted and presented as the proof of wide-spread organisation-wide corruption in the FBI and the Justice Department.
I was of the conviction that the Republicans actually had zero interest in releasing it, as it had so much more value as a propaganda tool as opposed to actually being released and subsequently fact-checked.
When released it turned out to be very long on accusations and assertions, and suspiciously short on evidence.
Yet........I regularly run into people that refer to the Nunes memo as having proven the supposed corruption in the FBI and the Justice Department.
Facts simply doesn't seem to matter.
They ran a similar con with Benghazi. They would have closed testimony, then Republicans would run to the media and wildly mischaracterise the actual testimony. The transcripts would be withheld, making it difficult to show what was actually stated was very different. If those transcripts were ever released, or when the finding of that committee found no wrong-doing, by then it was old news and there was a whole batch of new made up claims to work with.
Something went a little wrong with the Nunes memo, though. I'm not sure if they wrongly judged that Trump would refuse to release the memo, or they'd get more pushback from the FBI, I don't know, but as you say the memo wasn't actually supposed to be released. When it was, the lie that they'd be running before then, that the investigation was started by the Steele dossier and this fact was concealed from the FISA court, was immediately undone. Because by their own memo, forced to be at least somewhat connected to reality, had to admit that actually the intel in the Steele dossier was only added to one of the latter FISA re-applications as supporting evidence, and the source of the dossier was revealed, and actually the only complaint Nunes had was that the source of the data was in a footnote, not the main body.
Ouze wrote: Politically, he's totally right though - 100% right.
But in terms of governance, well Gingrich took control of a party who's last president was GHW Bush. The direction Gingrich took the party, aided by a lot of other people and factions, has since produced GW Bush and then Trump.
I think a lot of people like to believe that you can campaign on a pile of nonsense, but have sensible, decent policy ready to go. The Republican party of the mid-90s until now shows that how you campaign eventually becomes what you are.
Ouze wrote: Politically, he's totally right though - 100% right.
But in terms of governance, well Gingrich took control of a party who's last president was GHW Bush. The direction Gingrich took the party, aided by a lot of other people and factions, has since produced GW Bush and then Trump.
I think a lot of people like to believe that you can campaign on a pile of nonsense, but have sensible, decent policy ready to go. The Republican party of the mid-90s until now shows that how you campaign eventually becomes what you are.
It makes me feel really bad for (US) conservatives. They don't have a party, barely have candidates anywhere, and are given a bad name by Republicans. I draw the distinction here because we are well past the point where supporting the GOP and supporting conservative values are mutually exclusive. Quite frankly I go out of my way these days to separate those because I don't want to insult a perfectly reasonable political platform by calling them Republicans.
Pretty much, this exaggerate from both sides has gotten really stale. And out President's habit of seemingly taking anything said against him as treason does not help the issue.
Ouze wrote: Politically, he's totally right though - 100% right.
But in terms of governance, well Gingrich took control of a party who's last president was GHW Bush. The direction Gingrich took the party, aided by a lot of other people and factions, has since produced GW Bush and then Trump.
I think a lot of people like to believe that you can campaign on a pile of nonsense, but have sensible, decent policy ready to go. The Republican party of the mid-90s until now shows that how you campaign eventually becomes what you are.
It makes me feel really bad for (US) conservatives. They don't have a party, barely have candidates anywhere, and are given a bad name by Republicans. I draw the distinction here because we are well past the point where supporting the GOP and supporting conservative values are mutually exclusive. Quite frankly I go out of my way these days to separate those because I don't want to insult a perfectly reasonable political platform by calling them Republicans.
Is the Secret Service forcing the NRA to let Pence speak? Is Pence forcing the NRA to let him attent?
The NRA is forcing their members to disarm and creating a gun-free zone by deciding to have Pence attent in-person. The NRA made a decision that having a politician attent is more important than the ability of their membership to carry their weapons for their own protection. This is 100% on the NRA, and they can’t hide from that.
Well I hope Pence isn't forcing the NRA so he can attend, that sounds almost tyrannical
As for the WH dinner. What an overreaction. People going this is why Trump wins you guys just for pointing out Sanders lies? I guess the people watching Obama thought "that poor Trump, if he ever runs again we will elect him, that will show the meanies!" Meanwhile much more horrific things have been said that weren't even jokes by the current admin but that's yesterday's news.
whembly wrote: Is the NRA forcing the attendent to... attend?
Is the NRA choosing to create a gun-free zone, however temporary, due to their own choice as an organization?
It's not a gun-free zone... armed Secret Service personnel will be there.
Is the NRA creating a zone where people are not allowed to enjoy their 2nd Amendment right to carry a weapon on their person?
Yes... and?
You're making a silly argument. If the Secret Service is providing the security, the NRA would be fine with no one inside the being allowed to have a gun.
whembly wrote: Is the NRA forcing the attendent to... attend?
Is the NRA choosing to create a gun-free zone, however temporary, due to their own choice as an organization?
It's not a gun-free zone... armed Secret Service personnel will be there.
Is the NRA creating a zone where people are not allowed to enjoy their 2nd Amendment right to carry a weapon on their person?
Yes... and?
So your argument over the past hour evolved from:
1) The NRA isn't creating a gun-free zone, the Secret Service is. 2) The NRA isn't creating a gun-free zone because people aren't forced to attend. 3) The NRA isn't creating a gun-free zone because there will be police there with guns. 4) The NRA is creating a gun-free zone, but it doesn't matter. 4.5) The NRA is pro-gun free zone as long as there are cops there.
You're making a silly argument. If the Secret Service is providing the security, the NRA would be fine with no one inside the being allowed to have a gun.
Feel free to find me any kind of official statement by the NRA that they are in favor of replacing private carrying of guns with increased police presence. I will be patiently waiting over here.
I don't think the NRA sees it as such a threat to the 2nd Am as you do, D. Maybe their not as gun nut as you thought? Choosing to have Pence speak and making a concession to allow that to happen doesn't really smack as hypocrisy to me.
Belaboring the point and the usual "nanny anybody boo" type pedantry sure does drag the thread down. Especially with the added racist accusations to boot.
The accusation comes from how the NRA handled the Castille case and that was pretty terrible. The media had to basically torture a response out of the NRA and they didn't even mention his name when they finally did.
The NRA thing comes up at least once a year, either they have a guest that precludes people carrying firearms, or a venue they rent for an event has rules against carrying firearms. The NRA routinely gets heckled for it.
And basically, it always breaks down along the lines of either "they dont have to like the rules, they just follow them" and "well they could avoid that if they chose to stick up for their principles and just not do X/Y/Z"
Personally, I somewhat lean more to the latter, primarily as I have seen the NRA increasingly engage in straight up partisan culture war politics over 2A civil right issues and put people like Loesch as their public face and track GOP talking points and culture battles hand in hand. That said, reality is a thing, and that doesn't always fit everyone's plans or narratives no matter how "pure", and that must be acknowledged on at least some level.
As for Wolf and the WHCD, in normal times, I would have agreed that Wolf went way too far. In normal times I do not believe Wolf would have gone that far. Wolf is not my favorite comedian, I think much of her material didn't quite find its footing as comedy at the WHCD, I think her humor often misses the mark, and her stage voice is...irritating.
All that said, I'll be a cold corpse in hell before I feel the slighest twinge of sympathy for Huckabee-Sanders. I would have been far less forgiving if I were given that mic. When her idea of representing the office of the President of the United States to the American people is to deeply engage in a method acting study of Baghdad Bob, she doesn't get a pass, and deserves none. Wolf may not be my favorite comedian, and that may not have been her best night or material, but nobody she went after has any valid reason to complain, and if they cant take it, well, perhaps they should have made better life choices. What makes it doubly ironic is that her boss didn't have the cajones to show up to be the center of attention himself, not to mention the fact that theyve run into this exact same thing before...and didnt appear any better prepared for it.
From the people who brought us "lock her up", "most Mexicans are rapists", "kill their families", "Kenyan Muslim", "the President thinks everyone should be treated fairly and with due process" and "the President has never promoted violence" comes: "Why are comedians being so mean to us?"
Here is Wolf's nearly 20 minute routine. While I thought that lot of her individual jokes were weak and fell flat, overall I was very impressed. She called out everyone in the room.
"You all created this monster, and now you are all profiting from it." My respect for Wolf has gone way up.
feeder wrote: Here is Wolf's nearly 20 minute routine. While I thought that lot of her individual jokes were weak and fell flat, overall I was very impressed. She called out everyone in the room.
"You all created this monster, and now you are all profiting from it." My respect for Wolf has gone way up.
Ustrello wrote: Yes calling out the hypocrisy of the NRA is "making the thread go downhill", or that statement is just another strawman
Yes yes, I'm sorry for mentioning cops. Let's get past that.
But I DO find it hypocritical that the NRA promotes more guns everywhere with the tired old "good guy with a gun" and then rolls over like a dachshund asking for a belly rub when the Secret Service asks for no guns except theirs during the VP's visit. The NRA says everyone should be trusted with a gun if he can buy one so show it!
Ustrello wrote: Yes calling out the hypocrisy of the NRA is "making the thread go downhill", or that statement is just another strawman
Yes yes, I'm sorry for mentioning cops. Let's get past that.
But I DO find it hypocritical that the NRA promotes more guns everywhere with the tired old "good guy with a gun" and then rolls over like a dachshund asking for a belly rub when the Secret Service asks for no guns except theirs during the VP's visit. The NRA says everyone should be trusted with a gun if he can buy one so show it!
No no, I was calling out the fact that some of the posters here were deliberately moving goal posts and creating straw men
Vaktathi wrote: Personally, I somewhat lean more to the latter, primarily as I have seen the NRA increasingly engage in straight up partisan culture war politics over 2A civil right issues and put people like Loesch as their public face and track GOP talking points and culture battles hand in hand..
For a long time, the NRA was an organization that really looked out for sportsmen, police officers, and stood up to the worst excesses of the government. At some point in recent history, maybe the 80s or early 90s - I can't say exactly when, but maybe Frazzled could - they became a different organization, pretending that gun control in any form was a dire, existential threat to democracy, and then functionally becoming a shrill and loud arm of the current crazy wing that now occupies the spot conservatism once lived in. While they are nominally representatives of the gun manufacturing industry I think it's very reasonable to call them out what they are today; as you say - culture war foot soldiers that have veered far outside their lane.
I can't blame them for not wanting guns at an event, since whenever you have a big enough gun show the chances of a negligent discharge go up dramatically. People are dumb as gak, many states have no or virtually no competency requirements to conceal carry, and often the only hurdle for joining the NRA is having purchased a gun at retail with a complimentary membership. This is an uncomfortable truth for the NRA to say, of course.
Frazzled wrote: And here's where the thread went downhill...
I think you have to be honest that a lot of gun culture in America rests on white privilege - when young white men are free to go to Chipotle with ARs and AK's over their shoulders, but a young black man with a BB gun in a walmart is in mortal danger from the police. And that's how it's always been - remember Reagan signed an open carry ban, supported by the NRA.... once the Black Panthers started doing it.
feeder wrote: Here is Wolf's nearly 20 minute routine. While I thought that lot of her individual jokes were weak and fell flat, overall I was very impressed. She called out everyone in the room.
"You all created this monster, and now you are all profiting from it." My respect for Wolf has gone way up.
I have got to say this was the best stand up routine of the year so far. I know it wasn't really a stand up routine but the brutal truth of it was more hilarious for us at home. The looks on people's faces as she just kept going and not pulling back was hilarious!
When she made the comparison of Sarah Huckabee-Sanders to Aunt Lydia (Handmade's Tale), I lost it! That was savage as !
Wolf went in, took no prisoners, and salted the Earth as she left.
d-usa wrote: “Leader of the free world” is also a title that doesn’t just mean “person that bosses the rest of the world around”. There is the age old management discussion about what it means to be a leader rather than just being a boss.
More than that though, it is also a title for the type of leader the other countries should aspire to have. The personification of our “free and democratic” country standing in contrast to dictators and leaders of corrupt and evil governments. The leader with the values that should guide all leaders of every nation, who upholds the ideals and freedoms which sets the western world apart from others where people are repressed and suffer for things we take for granted.
Don't forget invading other countries for own benefit as biggest guns gives right as what us stands for
Ustrello wrote: Yes calling out the hypocrisy of the NRA is "making the thread go downhill", or that statement is just another strawman
Yes yes, I'm sorry for mentioning cops. Let's get past that.
But I DO find it hypocritical that the NRA promotes more guns everywhere with the tired old "good guy with a gun" and then rolls over like a dachshund asking for a belly rub when the Secret Service asks for no guns except theirs during the VP's visit. The NRA says everyone should be trusted with a gun if he can buy one so show it!
What the hell do you mean by "rolls over like a dachshund asking for a belly rub?" First they make you pick them up, put them on the sofa, get them a nice binkie and deep tissue back massage, then they let you rub their belly.
Vaktathi wrote: Personally, I somewhat lean more to the latter, primarily as I have seen the NRA increasingly engage in straight up partisan culture war politics over 2A civil right issues and put people like Loesch as their public face and track GOP talking points and culture battles hand in hand..
For a long time, the NRA was an organization that really looked out for sportsmen, police officers, and stood up to the worst excesses of the government. At some point in recent history, maybe the 80s or early 90s - I can't say exactly when, but maybe Frazzled could - they became a different organization, pretending that gun control in any form was a dire, existential threat to democracy, and then functionally becoming a shrill and loud arm of the current crazy wing that now occupies the spot conservatism once lived in. While they are nominally representatives of the gun manufacturing industry I think it's very reasonable to call them out what they are today; as you say - culture war foot soldiers that have veered far outside their lane.
I can't blame them for not wanting guns at an event, since whenever you have a big enough gun show the chances of a negligent discharge go up dramatically. People are dumb as gak, many states have no or virtually no competency requirements to conceal carry, and often the only hurdle for joining the NRA is having purchased a gun at retail with a complimentary membership. This is an uncomfortable truth for the NRA to say, of course.
Frazzled wrote: And here's where the thread went downhill...
I think you have to be honest that a lot of gun culture in America rests on white privilege - when young white men are free to go to Chipotle with ARs and AK's over their shoulders, but a young black man with a BB gun in a walmart is in mortal danger from the police. And that's how it's always been - remember Reagan signed an open carry ban, supported by the NRA.... once the Black Panthers started doing it.
About the time of the assault weapon ban and a slew of state regs that haven't stopped since.
Dreadwinter wrote: But yet, Reagan is a hero, not a villain. I don't get it. How can people be so ignorant of history?
???
Not seeing the connection. The AWB had nothing to do with Reagan.
Except the letter he wrote to congress urging support of an AWB, which wasn't even a new position for Reagan:
Despite the hero-worship by the GOP, Reagan would get his rear handed to him in a GOP primary, be called a RINO, and would probably end up running as a Democrat.
Dreadwinter wrote: But yet, Reagan is a hero, not a villain. I don't get it. How can people be so ignorant of history?
The AWB was passed in 1994, under Clinton. What does Reagan have to do with it?
It passed by 2 votes in the house, with 2 Republican lawmakers directly citing Reagan's push in support for the measure as the reason for their "yes" votes.
And Kennedy would be called a Republican, and therefore a racist Nazi. Still not getting your point. Inversely I don't see Democrats now hailing Reagan as the second coming of Feinstein or something.
The point is that Reagan supported the AWB and the Brady Bill, and that GOP lawmakers directly cite him as the reason for their votes in favor of it, causing it to pass.
The statement "Reagan had nothing to do with the AWB" is simply false, and at a minimum Reagan was in full support of the ban and according to Representatives it would not have passed without his support at all.
Speaking as someone who owns a couple of fire arms, and who's father also owns some guns, neither of us will have anything to do with the NRA.
At one time, a long, long time ago the NRA did a lot of safety training and promotions. They supported hunters and fishermen, all the outdoorsy types. But along the line, they morphed into some kind of weird 2nd Amendment crusaders screaming Deus Vult at anyone who every dares to question anything they hold to be gospel.
d-usa wrote: The point is that Reagan supported the AWB and the Brady Bill, and that GOP lawmakers directly cite him as the reason for their votes in favor of it, causing it to pass.
The statement "Reagan had nothing to do with the AWB" is simply false, and at a minimum Reagan was in full support of the ban and according to Representatives it would not have passed without his support at all.
Again...and? Literally what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Did we forget that Reagan was pro gun control or something? He pushed for the AWB and directly hurt the NRA. But yet, he is still the second coming.
We must have gotten a fresh new pair of extra rose tinted glasses or something.
Reagan is the second coming because Communism died, he cut taxes, and the economy grew at the greatest rate since WW2.
I don't like talking about Reagan because I look at Reagan then I look at Bush, then a look at how the amateurs took over after.
I supported it. Does that mean I had something to do with it? Again Reagan's greatness is unrelated to gun control. My you are a one hit note beat aren't you.
Frazzled wrote: I supported it. Does that mean I had something to do with it? Again Reagan's greatness is unrelated to gun control. My you are a one hit note beat aren't you.
We can go at it from another angle of false greatness, Reagan had nothing to do with the USSR falling. It was 20 years of Soviet incompetence that happened to finally fall and end up in the lap of Reagan. But, you can continue to move the goal posts Frazz because if Reagan would of voiced support for a total AWB today he would be run out of the GOP
Frazzled wrote: I supported it. Does that mean I had something to do with it?.
Maybe, did two GOP lawmakers who voted in favor of a bill that passed by two votes go on the record and say that they changed their mind and voted for this bill because Frazzled asked them to?
Because they did to that for Reagan.
My you are a one hit note beat aren't you.
Maybe, you are still wrong though.
PS: Reagan signed two of the biggest tax increases into law and raised federal spending and the deficit.
Frazzled wrote: I supported it. Does that mean I had something to do with it? Again Reagan's greatness is unrelated to gun control. My you are a one hit note beat aren't you.
We can go at it from another angle of false greatness, Reagan had nothing to do with the USSR falling. It was 20 years of Soviet incompetence that happened to finally fall and end up in the lap of Reagan. But, you can continue to move the goal posts Frazz because if Reagan would of voiced support for a total AWB today he would be run out of the GOP
You like to accuse people of moving the goal posts. Not me. I have a bad back.
We could argue the merits of how much to attribute the fall of Communism to Reagan, but that should be a separate thread or a history board.
d-usa wrote: The point is that Reagan supported the AWB and the Brady Bill, and that GOP lawmakers directly cite him as the reason for their votes in favor of it, causing it to pass.
The statement "Reagan had nothing to do with the AWB" is simply false, and at a minimum Reagan was in full support of the ban and according to Representatives it would not have passed without his support at all.
Again...and? Literally what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Did we forget that Reagan was pro gun control or something? He pushed for the AWB and directly hurt the NRA. But yet, he is still the second coming.
We must have gotten a fresh new pair of extra rose tinted glasses or something.
Reagan is the second coming because Communism died, he cut taxes, and the economy grew at the greatest rate since WW2.
I don't like talking about Reagan because I look at Reagan then I look at Bush, then a look at how the amateurs took over after.
Yeah, Communism is definitely dead and the economy definitely grew after his tax cuts, not the deficits that his tax cuts caused.
Revisionist history, pretty sure that is what people called this sort of thing.
Really Reagan's tax 'cuts', were nothing of the sort because they were paid for by closing loop holes on corporations & the wealthy, meaning no net tax reduction. The reason they are (rightfully imo) remembered as cuts is because only a small minority who had a ton of wealth anyways paid more while a huge number of Americans paid less. And we know the economic result.
Historically speaking, the less power the wealthy have had in a society the better off that society has been. I'm not aware of any exceptions.
Honestly, for me the only reason these two main discussions (NRA and/or Reagon) even matter is because they expose a certain level of hypocrisy that simply annoy me.
The NRA will take any opportunity to rail against any law or regulation that creates a gun-free zone, makes it clear that anyone in a gun free zone makes him or herself vulnerable because criminals will always target gun-free zones, that nobody should walk in a gun-free zone, and that people would never advertise their home as a gun-free zone. But because they like Pence they will roll over and sanction a gun-free zone rather than just throwing a live video feed on a screen at the convention.
If you are a politician in favor of gun-free zones, they will throw money and resources into your state until the cows come home to make sure you are defeated because you are a threat to everything this country stands for. If you are a politician they like and you want to speak at their convention, they will throw up the "no guns allowed" sign faster than speed at which Trump pours Ketchup on his well-done steaks.
And with politicians in general, they will bend over backwards to out-Reagan each other while spending millions to paint themselves as the 2nd Coming of Reagan. But they will paint any Democrat with the same political positions and opinion as Reagan as the biggest threat to America currently existing.
Reagan The Person is held up as the patron saint of the Republican Party.
Reagan The Policy is frequently in direct contrast to the Republican Party.
Neither is hypocritical D... unless, you just want to pick some perceived low-hanging fruit and feel like venting.
The Secret Service has jurisdiction over the venue whenever POTUS/VP speaks at a venue... that is something that is WELL understood by the public. It's not like the SS is telling the NRA "no guns" at the convention at all... only during the venue that the VP will have his speech.
Reagan was a great President.... no, he wasn't perfect. The only people who keeps pushing the whole "Saint Reagan!" are those mockingly making a poor point.
whembly wrote: Neither is hypocritical D... unless, you just want to pick some perceived low-hanging fruit and feel like venting.
The Secret Service has jurisdiction over the venue whenever POTUS/VP speaks at a venue... that is something that is WELL understood by the public. It's not like the SS is telling the NRA "no guns" at the convention at all... only during the venue that the VP will have his speech.
Reagan was a great President.... no, he wasn't perfect. The only people who keeps pushing the whole "Saint Reagan!" are those mockingly making a poor point.
So tell him that if he has to have a gun free zone, he can have a gun free zone at the White House and just video call in. He doesn't have to be there to give a speech. The NRA is saying "no guns at the convention at all" during the time the VP is in the Arena. Which means everybody who brought guns will have to, wait can they even keep their guns in their cars for this? Where are all of these people keeping all of these guns they are bringing to the NRA Convention?
Also, the only people pushing the whole "Saint Reagan!" thing are the ones you vote for that are trying to ride his coattails in to history.
This is not mentioning that every time a government official requires no guns at a location they are attending it is supporting the idea that guns are dangerous to have around. People who genuinely believed guns make people safer would advocate for as many guns as possible in schools, airports, hospitals, political events, conventions, etc. They don't, because they don't actually have the opinion they express.
d-usa wrote: Back to a refuted point in less than 10 hours? That might be a new record.
The NRA made the choice of having the gun-free zone by inviting people that require the creation of a gun-free zone.
Refuted? Nah... 'tis just your opinion.
You not liking a fact doesn't make it my opinion.
Why is Pence there?
Either the NRA invited him, with the full knowledge that there will be a gun-free zone and that their members will be forced to disarm for his appearance.
The other possibility is that Pence invited himself and told the NRA that he will be there whether they like it or not and that everybody will remove their weapons whether they like it or not.
I'm gonna go with the first option there, which means that the NRA is okay with gun-free zones as long as they really like the reason all their guns are gone.
*sigh* ...and this is coming from someone who has a shotgun and pistol locked up and disassembled since about a year ago...
A convention is a large gathering of people.
Granted, in this case most of them are law abiding citizens, knowledgeable of gun safety rules, but still a large gathering of people.
There are ALWAYS security measures taken when large gatherings of people are organized, especially to protect those law abiding citizens.
Even if it was the NRA banning weapons to some areas within the convention, there would be absolutely nothing wrong or hypocritical about it. The NRA exists to defend the 2nd Amendment and to promote gun safety, not to promote a wild wild west society.
Inviting a sitting POTUS/VP incurs additional security as the USSS dictates. This is *well* telegraphed by the NRA's own's website. All attendees would be aware of this...and can adjust accordingly.
Furthermore, the convention is televised as well... so, any attendee refusing to give up their firearms can watch it outside of the venue.
Ya'll are making a proverbial mountain out of an anthill. Sheesh.
The NRA disagrees with most of everything you claim they stand for.
And yes, I know that they know that inviting the VPOTUS reguires a gun-free zone. To put it pluntly: that is the entire fething point of why it’s the NRA making the choice to have a gun-free venue.
whembly wrote: *sigh* ...and this is coming from someone who has a shotgun and pistol locked up and disassembled since about a year ago...
A convention is a large gathering of people.
Granted, in this case most of them are law abiding citizens, knowledgeable of gun safety rules, but still a large gathering of people.
There are ALWAYS security measures taken when large gatherings of people are organized, especially to protect those law abiding citizens.
Even if it was the NRA banning weapons to some areas within the convention, there would be absolutely nothing wrong or hypocritical about it. The NRA exists to defend the 2nd Amendment and to promote gun safety, not to promote a wild wild west society.
Inviting a sitting POTUS/VP incurs additional security as the USSS dictates. This is *well* telegraphed by the NRA's own's website. All attendees would be aware of this...and can adjust accordingly.
Furthermore, the convention is televised as well... so, any attendee refusing to give up their firearms can watch it outside of the venue.
Ya'll are making a proverbial mountain out of an anthill. Sheesh.
I think you're willfully ignoring the obvious hypocrisy of the NRA railing and fighting against any measure of gun control or gun-free spaces, while then going and doing exactly that at one of their conventions.
d-usa wrote: The NRA disagrees with most of everything you claim they stand for.
I'm sorry... wut?
And yes, I know that they kn
ow that inviting the VPOTUS reguires a gun-free zone. To put it pluntly: that is the entire fething point of why it’s the NRA making the choice to have a gun-free venue.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well I hope Pence isn't forcing the NRA so he can attend, that sounds almost tyrannical
As for the WH dinner. What an overreaction. People going this is why Trump wins you guys just for pointing out Sanders lies? I guess the people watching Obama thought "that poor Trump, if he ever runs again we will elect him, that will show the meanies!" Meanwhile much more horrific things have been said that weren't even jokes by the current admin but that's yesterday's news.
The art of the con is the administration is really angry at being called liars, but they can't just say that because then people will respond by pointing out all the lies the administration tells on a regular basis. So instead they run on a false offense, pretending that a line about Sanders using burnt facts for an eye shadow is somehow an attack on her looks.
But the problem is this position is pretty obviously weak, and the White House is really bad at message discipline, even when Trump isn't screwing it up with random tweets. As a result Matt Schlapp, the guy who made a big show of walking out and tweeting about it, was just on CNN saying "Journalists should not be the ones to say that the president or his spokesperson is lying".
These guys are so terrible they can't even keep the cover up for a day before someone blurts out what its really about. But pathetically that was more than long enough to get an apology from the correspondents association.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It's not a gun-free zone... armed Secret Service personnel will be there.
Oh, so it's okay for a population to be banned from carrying firearms, as long as there are government officers with firearms?
Dude... I mean, I think the disarmed NRA event thing is a non-story and I didn't want to get involved but you are really leading with your chin here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Here is Wolf's nearly 20 minute routine. While I thought that lot of her individual jokes were weak and fell flat, overall I was very impressed. She called out everyone in the room.
"You all created this monster, and now you are all profiting from it." My respect for Wolf has gone way up.
Calling out the administration on its lies, her points about the media's role in Trump's creation and how they profit from his chaos now were good points that need to made in a public platform like the correspondent's dinner. But there was no single moment of clarity or insight, and no thread that made the whole thing work as a collective idea. Instead it just ended up scatter shot, one liners that sometimes hit and mostly missed.
And its a real shame, because the dinner is a massive platform, its an opportunity to say something that will be heard, that can cut through and go a long way to really defining how we understand an issue. Colbert's 'truthiness' is the stand out, it gave us the language to describe the Bush administration's method of placing beliefs about the actual facts, it turned what had been a Bush admin weapon in to a massive weakness.
There's a line in The Usual Suspects, 'How do you shoot the devil in the back, what if you miss?' Wolf took her shot, but she missed.
Ouze wrote: For a long time, the NRA was an organization that really looked out for sportsmen, police officers, and stood up to the worst excesses of the government. At some point in recent history, maybe the 80s or early 90s - I can't say exactly when, but maybe Frazzled could...
1977. The Cincinnati Revolt. Before then the NRA saw itself primarily as an organisation that served gun hobbyists, and remained largely outside of politics. The few Federal gun laws that were enacted were done with NRA approval, albeit muted and passive. But all that changed in 1977 when Harlon Carter took a fringe of supporters to the GM and won the presidency. Within a couple of years the NRA was transformed from a hobbyist's club to a political lobbying group.
Fast forward 40 years from that and you have Dana Loesch saying the left "will perish in the political flames of their own fires", which totally isn't what you'd hear out of cult at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Reagan is the second coming because Communism died, he cut taxes, and the economy grew at the greatest rate since WW2.
The economy grew faster under Clinton than it did under Reagan. It also grew faster under Kennedy and Johnson. Your claim is completely false.
Also, Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Reagan administration was completely blindsided and had no idea it was coming. All the stuff about big military spending was a rewrite after the event. Hell, even that big spending that Reagan fanboys pretend caused communism to fail wasn't even a Reagan policy, it was begun under Carter, due to a change of policy towards constant readiness driven by strategic think tanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Really Reagan's tax 'cuts', were nothing of the sort because they were paid for by closing loop holes on corporations & the wealthy, meaning no net tax reduction.
No. Reagan's 1981 tax cut was not a zero sum tax bill, the loopholes closures weren't meant to offset the revenue. What was meant to happen was the tax cut would spur massive growth, so the tax cuts would pay for themselves. That didn't happen and as a result the deficit exploded. Reagan was honest enough to see a problem, and as a result he then went about passing tax increases every other year of his presidency. However, these were not enough to rebuild revenue back to its pre-Reagan rates, it went from 19.1% of revenue down to 16.9% at its low point in 1986, and certainly not enough to recover the deficit, which went from 32% of GDP to 53% of GDP, and has been geared structurally to rise long term ever since due to Reagan locking in tax rates that are too low for service commitments.
The reason they are (rightfully imo) remembered as cuts is because only a small minority who had a ton of wealth anyways paid more while a huge number of Americans paid less.
And we know the economic result.
Less growth than we saw in the 90s, a period in which Bush and then Clinton passed tax increases. So no, most people don't know the history.
People forget that... not ONLY did he help drop the tax rate... he ALSO advocated for more government spending.
EDIT: ...and Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR? I'm not saying he should have all the credit... but, nothing at all??? That's an interesting take...
Fast forward 40 years from that and you have Dana Loesch saying the left "will perish in the political flames of their own fires", which totally isn't what you'd hear out of cult at all.
Oh... by the way... Dana Loesch is fricking awesome chick*.
*I'm biased as I've listened to Dana back in the day and been to a few concerts that her husband played in (Full System Purge).
People forget that... not ONLY did he help drop the tax rate... he ALSO advocated for more government spending.
EDIT: ...and Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR? I'm not saying he should have all the credit... but, nothing at all??? That's an interesting take...
The fall of the USSR began with Brezhnev and his prioritizing of Military and the Space Race over consumer goods. By the time Reagan was president a large chunk of the USSR economy was made up of black market goods, so no he does not nearly deserve the amount of credit he is given
People forget that... not ONLY did he help drop the tax rate... he ALSO advocated for more government spending.
Reagan, GW Bush, and now Trump. Cut taxes and boost spending. The only Republican to refuse to do that was GHW Bush, so of course he's the one who got voted out after one term :(
EDIT: ...and Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR? I'm not saying he should have all the credit... but, nothing at all??? That's an interesting take...
By what mechanism or policy did he make any of the events of the collapse in the Soviet Union happen?
Oh... by the way... Dana Loesch is fricking awesome chick*.
Best we just never, ever comment on this, ever.
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Seb, I realize I wasn't specific. I meant to refer to the '86 package specifically but did not actually say it.
Cool. And yeah, the '86 package was, it really did close loopholes and use those loopholes to fund overall cuts. One of the better things Reagan did, and something no-one since Reagan has even managed to get past a campaign speech.
But note that the '86 package doesn't exist in isolation. Before then we had the massive '81 tax cut, which was meant to fund itself through Laffer curve magic, then we have the two or three small tax increases just to bring some stability back to government revenue, then we have the '86 deal.
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Seb, I realize I wasn't specific. I meant to refer to the '86 package specifically but did not actually say it.
Cool. And yeah, the '86 package was, it really did close loopholes and use those loopholes to fund overall cuts. One of the better things Reagan did, and something no-one since Reagan has even managed to get past a campaign speech.
But note that the '86 package doesn't exist in isolation. Before then we had the massive '81 tax cut, which was meant to fund itself through Laffer curve magic, then we have the two or three small tax increases just to bring some stability back to government revenue, then we have the '86 deal.
Absolutely. But there is some real credit there for both learning from previous mistakes and creating a bipartisan compromise. Oddly enough these things are anathema to the modern GOP. Reagan's party indeed.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Absolutely. But there is some real credit there for both learning from previous mistakes and creating a bipartisan compromise. Oddly enough these things are anathema to the modern GOP. Reagan's party indeed.
Yep. Since then we've had 3 tax cuts under Republican presidents, and they all followed the model of the '81 tax cut, just an unfunded cut with a claim it won't bust the budget because of Laffer curve magic. Every time, the result was big deficit increases.
Slight change of subject, I read a funny thing recently. The Trump tax cut is very unpopular, under 30% approval. Which is interesting because its functionally no different to the two tax cuts under Bush, where small middle class tax cuts were used to deflect from large cuts for the wealthiest, and the whole thing was paid for with debt, and those were pretty popular because hey, free money. But this time, with the Trump tax cut, not only is the whole thing unpopular, it's managed to be less popular than the tax increases GHW Bush and Clinton passed.
Something has changed, when a tax cut is less popular than previous tax increases.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well I hope Pence isn't forcing the NRA so he can attend, that sounds almost tyrannical
As for the WH dinner. What an overreaction. People going this is why Trump wins you guys just for pointing out Sanders lies? I guess the people watching Obama thought "that poor Trump, if he ever runs again we will elect him, that will show the meanies!" Meanwhile much more horrific things have been said that weren't even jokes by the current admin but that's yesterday's news.
The art of the con is the administration is really angry at being called liars, but they can't just say that because then people will respond by pointing out all the lies the administration tells on a regular basis. So instead they run on a false offense, pretending that a line about Sanders using burnt facts for an eye shadow is somehow an attack on her looks.
But the problem is this position is pretty obviously weak, and the White House is really bad at message discipline, even when Trump isn't screwing it up with random tweets. As a result Matt Schlapp, the guy who made a big show of walking out and tweeting about it, was just on CNN saying "Journalists should not be the ones to say that the president or his spokesperson is lying".
These guys are so terrible they can't even keep the cover up for a day before someone blurts out what its really about. But pathetically that was more than long enough to get an apology from the correspondents association.
He... he actually said that on CNN?
The jellyfish are really out in force for this admin. And I can't believe the association folded so quickly, they think they were being too rude about people who engage in racism and falsehoods on a daily basis. Is having your one day in the sun so important you will just bend over at the first hint of critique? These really are unbelievable times. Each day we go further down the rabbit hole of insanity.
Its awefully convenient to say the least that he found it right now. Its already clear documents Bibi included were also partly handed over by Iran themselves years ago. Question is, how long have the Israelis been sitting on this and should we really put our trust in Bibi when it comes to the Iran deal? Its like asking Erdogan how we should feel about Gülen/the Kurds. Israel has a clear agenda, this shouldn't just be taken at face value. Critical point, nothing Bibi showed is a direct violation of the 2015 deal. These are documents Israel might have hoarded for years to damage the process.
And to be honest Iran isn't going to renegotiate to get a worse deal with Trump even if this is false. What is Trump going to do, invade Iran? It would certainly please Pompeo and Bolton, coincidentally the people who have been pro intervention for years and shouting in support of Israel the loudest. Will Iran get a fair chance between Bibi, Pompeo and Bolton?
Frazzled wrote: And Kennedy would be called a Republican, and therefore a racist Nazi. Still not getting your point. Inversely I don't see Democrats now hailing Reagan as the second coming of Feinstein or something.
I just wanted to comment on the Michele Wolf thing - it's pretty funny to see supporters of a president who has crudely insulted many women, veterans, the disabled and whoever else get so upset over a comedian making some edgy jokes.
The hypocrisy is pretty delicious. I thought left wing people were the snowflakes?!
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well I hope Pence isn't forcing the NRA so he can attend, that sounds almost tyrannical
As for the WH dinner. What an overreaction. People going this is why Trump wins you guys just for pointing out Sanders lies? I guess the people watching Obama thought "that poor Trump, if he ever runs again we will elect him, that will show the meanies!" Meanwhile much more horrific things have been said that weren't even jokes by the current admin but that's yesterday's news.
... ... ...
And to be honest Iran isn't going to renegotiate to get a worse deal with Trump even if this is false. What is Trump going to do, invade Iran? It would certainly please Pompeo and Bolton, coincidentally the people who have been pro intervention for years and shouting in support of Israel the loudest. Will Iran get a fair chance between Bibi, Pompeo and Bolton?
No-one serious is putting any value on the Netanyahu documents.
All the experts on BBC news and analysis are saying this is the same documentation we were aware of a decade ago, when a lot of it was already old news. Yes, it was an feat by Mossad to exfiltrate such a mass of documentation, but it's irrelevant to the current situation.
The dramatic revelation now is an obvious ploy to bounce Trump into not signing the acccord for another extension.
This may not make any difference to Trump, though, as he takes his situation briefings in the form of picture postcards.
With regards to the Correspondents' Dinner, I read a selection of the jokes. Some were very funny, most were to the point -- this is an administration that richly deserves mockery. They weren't all great and some went wincingly close to the bone. Arguably that's all within the brief, and part the nature of political comedy, particularly since US culture has more of a tradition of cruel jokes.
If there is a valid liberal complaint, it should be that the President is making a mockery of all the unwritten rules of consideration and propriety that underpin the real functioning of American democracy. The 4th estate should not lower itself to the same level. If you like, Democrats and Independents should preserve the respect for the office and institution which the GoP and Trumpists have thrown out the window.
Trump won't last forever. The country needs to get back to civilised government when he's gone.
And to be honest Iran isn't going to renegotiate to get a worse deal with Trump even if this is false. What is Trump going to do, invade Iran? It would certainly please Pompeo and Bolton, coincidentally the people who have been pro intervention for years and shouting in support of Israel the loudest. Will Iran get a fair chance between Bibi, Pompeo and Bolton?
No-one serious is putting any value on the Netanyahu documents.
All the experts on BBC news and analysis are saying this is the same documentation we were aware of a decade ago, when a lot of it was already old news. Yes, it was an feat by Mossad to exfiltrate such a mass of documentation, but it's irrelevant to the current situation.
The dramatic revelation now is an obvious ploy to bounce Trump into not signing the acccord for another extension.
This may not make any difference to Trump, though, as he takes his situation briefings in the form of picture postcards.
With regards to the Correspondents' Dinner, I read a selection of the jokes. Some were very funny, most were to the point -- this is an administration that richly deserves mockery. They weren't all great and some went wincingly close to the bone. Arguably that's all within the brief, and part the nature of political comedy, particularly since US culture has more of a tradition of cruel jokes.
If there is a valid liberal complaint, it should be that the President is making a mockery of all the unwritten rules of consideration and propriety that underpin the real functioning of American democracy. The 4th estate should not lower itself to the same level. If you like, Democrats and Independents should preserve the respect for the office and institution which the GoP and Trumpists have thrown out the window.
Trump won't last forever. The country needs to get back to civilised government when he's gone.
The problem is that Bolton and Pompeo aren't exactly nobodies in the Trump admin and they have already used the Bibi documents to argue you can't trust Iran. So they already have put value on them to forge a narrative with which to break the Iran deal. My use of the word false was more in relation to the fact that it wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis actually included falsified documents to convince the US. I know the value of the documents themselves is small and actually would help the Iran deal if it wasn't for the massive spin. It matters to Trump because he is isolated from critical sources and surrounded by people who will feed him the Bibi BS.
Yes it was a so so routine. Funny at times and head scratching at others. Most of it was brutally honest though. I share the concerns about the Trump admin demolishing the unwritten rules, hopefully they will be patchable when he leaves, but I have some doubts, as what is considered normal/acceptable is already sliding.
Lots of hypocracy in the media and the anti gun lobby talking against guns because, ,”guns kill”, when alcohol is responsible for as many drunk driver deaths per year as are people murdered in gun related incidents. Add to that, overall alcohol kills 88,000 people per year, yet no where near the out rage as against guns. Quite the opposite, if advertisements for alcohol are anything to go by.
It was embarrassing to see a word leader give a high school power point presentation like that. IRAN LIED emblazoned in giant letters, as though it was Watergate or something.
Feth me, I half expected Donald Rumsfeld to walk on stage and mention known unknowns
And as always, the US reaction was depressingly predictable. The Israeli tail wagging the American dog.
For years, I have wondered what the USA gets out of this partnership. It has never made any sense from a geo-politcal point of view, certainly not when you compare it to the actions of the last super power who used to run the Middle East i.e Britain.
War drums in the media priming the people for the 'necessary' war to safeguard the security of the world etc etc etc etc
How doesn't it make sense to have Israel as a partner. While US support often goes too far, Israel still provides a powerful Western ally in the region with a top notch intelligence service. An ally that is stable at that and has few options to turn away from the US.
Disciple of Fate wrote: How doesn't it make sense to have Israel as a partner. While US support often goes too far, Israel still provides a powerful Western ally in the region with a top notch intelligence service. An ally that is stable at that and has few options to turn away from the US.
The USA has no Suez Canal to protect.
The USA produces a lot of its own oil, and if fracking took off, would be completely self-sufficient in energy supply. Hell, they could set up solar panals in Arizona or New Mexico.
The continuing US presence in the Middle East is by choice, not strategic necessity. It's emotion drivien.
As I said two weeks ago, the British Empire backing the creation of a Jewish nation makes perfect sense = friendly nation next to Suez Canal.
Britain invades Syria to stop Vichy France allowing Germany airfields and a presense that threatens crucial oil pipelines = perfect sense.
The USA in the Middle East in 2018? I remain unconvinced. If Israel needs tanks and guns, sell them or gift them to Israel.
The only MIddile East nation the USA should really care about is Turkey for NATO obligations.
For years, I have wondered what the USA gets out of this partnership. It has never made any sense from a geo-politcal point of view, certainly not when you compare it to the actions of the last super power who used to run the Middle East i.e Britain.
It's a mix of the benefit of having an ally in the region, a bit of WW2 guilt, and the religious implications of Israel being Israel.
Religion is a big driver for the US support for Israel. There is a sense that if you love Jesus, you must love and support Israel. And without Israel existing there won't be a 2nd coming of Christ, so we must prevent it from ever falling. How can you build the Third Temple if Israel no longer exists? Stuff like that. It's a bit of the same reasons the Church launched all those crusades in the past, but with a bit less antisemitism thrown into the mix.
Yeah, the religion angle is one I'm familiar with, and it makes a lot of sense in understanding why certain decisions are made, but long I've maintained that a foreign policy based on emotionalism is always a bad mix.
Israel and Saudi Arabia have a problem with Iran, and now by default, the USA has a problem with Iran.
But on the most basic level of self-preservation, Iran is no threat to the US mainland, and even a nuclear armed Iran is no threat on the basis that the US nuclear arsenal would destroy Iran 10 times over, if Iran ever struck first against Washington or Chicago or whatever.
It's why I respect the Founding Fathers. They weren't perfect, and many were religious men themselves, but they knew the outcome of politics and religion mixing, which is why they strove to keep them separate.
Disciple of Fate wrote: How doesn't it make sense to have Israel as a partner. While US support often goes too far, Israel still provides a powerful Western ally in the region with a top notch intelligence service. An ally that is stable at that and has few options to turn away from the US.
The USA has no Suez Canal to protect.
The USA produces a lot of its own oil, and if fracking took off, would be completely self-sufficient in energy supply. Hell, they could set up solar panals in Arizona or New Mexico.
The continuing US presence in the Middle East is by choice, not strategic necessity. It's emotion drivien.
As I said two weeks ago, the British Empire backing the creation of a Jewish nation makes perfect sense = friendly nation next to Suez Canal.
Britain invades Syria to stop Vichy France allowing Germany airfields and a presense that threatens crucial oil pipelines = perfect sense.
The USA in the Middle East in 2018? I remain unconvinced. If Israel needs tanks and guns, sell them or gift them to Israel.
The only MIddile East nation the USA should really care about is Turkey for NATO obligations.
No it is most definitely a necessity. Since WW2 the US has led an economic and political hegemony that makes countries such as Israel vital. Retreating from those commitments means the degrading of US power in this world, power from which it immensely benefits. I thought you were a student of US history?
Disciple of Fate wrote: How doesn't it make sense to have Israel as a partner. While US support often goes too far, Israel still provides a powerful Western ally in the region with a top notch intelligence service. An ally that is stable at that and has few options to turn away from the US.
The USA has no Suez Canal to protect.
The USA produces a lot of its own oil, and if fracking took off, would be completely self-sufficient in energy supply. Hell, they could set up solar panals in Arizona or New Mexico.
The continuing US presence in the Middle East is by choice, not strategic necessity. It's emotion drivien.
As I said two weeks ago, the British Empire backing the creation of a Jewish nation makes perfect sense = friendly nation next to Suez Canal.
Britain invades Syria to stop Vichy France allowing Germany airfields and a presense that threatens crucial oil pipelines = perfect sense.
The USA in the Middle East in 2018? I remain unconvinced. If Israel needs tanks and guns, sell them or gift them to Israel.
The only MIddile East nation the USA should really care about is Turkey for NATO obligations.
No it is most definitely a necessity. Since WW2 the US has led an economic and political hegemony that makes countries such as Israel vital. Retreating from those commitments means the degrading of US power in this world, power from which it immensely benefits. I thought you were a student of US history?
I am a student of US history, but if your argument about US economic hegemony is correct, and to be fair, there is some truth in what you say,
then why has the US surrendered the economic initiative to China in Africa or with the TPP in Asia?
Disciple of Fate wrote: How doesn't it make sense to have Israel as a partner. While US support often goes too far, Israel still provides a powerful Western ally in the region with a top notch intelligence service. An ally that is stable at that and has few options to turn away from the US.
The USA has no Suez Canal to protect.
The USA produces a lot of its own oil, and if fracking took off, would be completely self-sufficient in energy supply. Hell, they could set up solar panals in Arizona or New Mexico.
The continuing US presence in the Middle East is by choice, not strategic necessity. It's emotion drivien.
As I said two weeks ago, the British Empire backing the creation of a Jewish nation makes perfect sense = friendly nation next to Suez Canal.
Britain invades Syria to stop Vichy France allowing Germany airfields and a presense that threatens crucial oil pipelines = perfect sense.
The USA in the Middle East in 2018? I remain unconvinced. If Israel needs tanks and guns, sell them or gift them to Israel.
The only MIddile East nation the USA should really care about is Turkey for NATO obligations.
No it is most definitely a necessity. Since WW2 the US has led an economic and political hegemony that makes countries such as Israel vital. Retreating from those commitments means the degrading of US power in this world, power from which it immensely benefits. I thought you were a student of US history?
I am a student of US history, but if your argument about US economic hegemony is correct, and to be fair, there is some truth in what you say,
then why has the US surrendered the economic initiative to China in Africa or with the TPP in Asia?
Because the US is a run by a man with the attention span of a toddler and the knowledge of one (really, picture flashcards?), supported by people more incompetent than the other and successful in decimating the experienced State Department staff. Before IS/Crimea reared its head the policy was a strategic pivot towards Asia to counter China. Clinton was also in favor of this pivot. There is some luck in the fact that China is now ruled by Xi Jinping, because his hardcore nationalism has driven Asian countries towards the US regardless of incompetence.
US empire was build on free trade and the Washington Consensus, but the US elected a man that seems to be a firm believer in 1930's protectionism.
Israel is one US ally amongst many in the Middle East, where the US alliance system relies on the 'hubs and spokes' system instead of the more coherent European approach. The same system is in place in Asia, its pretty smart actually, all those countries tend to dislike/hate each other, but because all interaction goes through the US and not amongst themselves, the US manages to salvage a pretty unified direction for such a unorganized region. It doesn't matter if they hate each other, as long as they are all aligned with the US.
It was embarrassing to see a word leader give a high school power point presentation like that. IRAN LIED emblazoned in giant letters, as though it was Watergate or something.
Feth me, I half expected Donald Rumsfeld to walk on stage and mention known unknowns
And as always, the US reaction was depressingly predictable. The Israeli tail wagging the American dog.
For years, I have wondered what the USA gets out of this partnership. It has never made any sense from a geo-politcal point of view, certainly not when you compare it to the actions of the last super power who used to run the Middle East i.e Britain.
War drums in the media priming the people for the 'necessary' war to safeguard the security of the world etc etc etc etc
Predictable but not surprising.
It was a presentation for an audience of 1
We shall see how it goes down, I suspecy that a decision has already been made. At this point however, if Trump decides to decertify the deal, I cannot see any future negotiations looking productive, and the partners the US had arranging the deal will wash their hands of it and won't uphold sanctions, making the whole endeavor pointless except for the people who want to see other people die.
Disciple of Fate wrote: How doesn't it make sense to have Israel as a partner. While US support often goes too far, Israel still provides a powerful Western ally in the region with a top notch intelligence service. An ally that is stable at that and has few options to turn away from the US.
The USA has no Suez Canal to protect.
The USA produces a lot of its own oil, and if fracking took off, would be completely self-sufficient in energy supply. Hell, they could set up solar panals in Arizona or New Mexico.
The continuing US presence in the Middle East is by choice, not strategic necessity. It's emotion drivien.
As I said two weeks ago, the British Empire backing the creation of a Jewish nation makes perfect sense = friendly nation next to Suez Canal.
Britain invades Syria to stop Vichy France allowing Germany airfields and a presense that threatens crucial oil pipelines = perfect sense.
The USA in the Middle East in 2018? I remain unconvinced. If Israel needs tanks and guns, sell them or gift them to Israel.
The only MIddile East nation the USA should really care about is Turkey for NATO obligations.
No it is most definitely a necessity. Since WW2 the US has led an economic and political hegemony that makes countries such as Israel vital. Retreating from those commitments means the degrading of US power in this world, power from which it immensely benefits. I thought you were a student of US history?
I am a student of US history, but if your argument about US economic hegemony is correct, and to be fair, there is some truth in what you say,
then why has the US surrendered the economic initiative to China in Africa or with the TPP in Asia?
Mostly ill-considered spite and latent xenophobia mixed with a regressively infantile mercantilist view of trade by the current administration.
It was embarrassing to see a word leader give a high school power point presentation like that. IRAN LIED emblazoned in giant letters, as though it was Watergate or something.
Feth me, I half expected Donald Rumsfeld to walk on stage and mention known unknowns
And as always, the US reaction was depressingly predictable. The Israeli tail wagging the American dog.
For years, I have wondered what the USA gets out of this partnership. It has never made any sense from a geo-politcal point of view, certainly not when you compare it to the actions of the last super power who used to run the Middle East i.e Britain.
War drums in the media priming the people for the 'necessary' war to safeguard the security of the world etc etc etc etc
Predictable but not surprising.
It was a presentation for an audience of 1
We shall see how it goes down, I suspecy that a decision has already been made. At this point however, if Trump decides to decertify the deal, I cannot see any future negotiations looking productive, and the partners the US had arranging the deal will wash their hands of it and won't uphold sanctions, making the whole endeavor pointless except for the people who want to see other people die.
I think the EU will consider the US a lost cause if Trump drops the Iran deal. The EU has been itching to get into those natural gas reserves so its hard to see what could sway the EU to side with mister flip flop.
but I spent 4-5 hours of my life watching John Kerry at the Congress and Senate hearings on the Iran deal.
I'm not John Kerry's greatest fan, but he argued the case well.
When he asked the GOP what they would do differently, they had FETHING nothing. No reply. Bluster and bullgak to a man and woman. Marco Rubio was a disgrace, out of his depth.
God Almighty, you can't run a superpower like that.
Because there is no other solution really. Try to be tougher and Iran just steps out and potentially restarts is nuclear program. The only recourse would be an invasion of Iran (a wet dream for the likes of Bolton and Pompeo), but with this admin that would probably go even worse than Iraq. This Iran deal is it, it is the best option and the Republicans sure as hell know it, which is why they have kept their mouth shut and silently pray that Trump doesn't break it. Just look at how vocal they were under Obama, and how deadly quiet they are now while in full control of the government.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Because there is no other solution really. Try to be tougher and Iran just steps out and potentially restarts is nuclear program. The only recourse would be an invasion of Iran (a wet dream for the likes of Bolton and Pompeo), but with this admin that would probably go even worse than Iraq. This Iran deal is it, it is the best option and the Republicans sure as hell know it, which is why they have kept their mouth shut and silently pray that Trump doesn't break it. Just look at how vocal they were under Obama, and how deadly quiet they are now while in full control of the government.
Agreed. Without a shadow of a doubt, in a conventional war, the USA knocks Iran into the middle of tomorrow every time.
But 3 factors are crucial here.
1. Like you say, nobody wants another Iraq and ISIL style groups filling the vacuum. Iran is a known quantity, regardless of what you think of the current regime.
2. How would Russia react? Does the USA want thousands of Russian 'tourists' descending on Iran?
3. Any war would create another massive headache of a refugee crisis that would destabilise the entire region.
Can the USA win? Yes. Do they want another dumpster fire to put out? Hell no.
John Bolton should be locked away in some Alaskan log cabin for a few years.
but I spent 4-5 hours of my life watching John Kerry at the Congress and Senate hearings on the Iran deal.
I'm not John Kerry's greatest fan, but he argued the case well.
When he asked the GOP what they would do differently, they had FETHING nothing. No reply. Bluster and bullgak to a man and woman. Marco Rubio was a disgrace, out of his depth.
God Almighty, you can't run a superpower like that.
hence why we have a President where an approval rating above 40% is seens as a record high and congressional approval rating in the teens.
The GOP has proven rather conclusively that it has no plans to govern and is incapable of actually ruling. With literally every branch of government under their control, they cant seem do anything except "tax cuts" and "undo anything Obama did". They seemingly have no agenda they can rally behind and push now that they have the responsibility of governing.
but I spent 4-5 hours of my life watching John Kerry at the Congress and Senate hearings on the Iran deal.
I'm not John Kerry's greatest fan, but he argued the case well.
When he asked the GOP what they would do differently, they had FETHING nothing. No reply. Bluster and bullgak to a man and woman. Marco Rubio was a disgrace, out of his depth.
God Almighty, you can't run a superpower like that.
hence why we have a President where an approval rating above 40% is seens as a record high and congressional approval rating in the teens.
The GOP has proven rather conclusively that it has no plans to govern and is incapable of actually ruling. With literally every branch of government under their control, they cant seem do anything except "tax cuts" and "undo anything Obama did". They seemingly have no agenda they can rally behind and push now that they have the responsibility of governing.
Why are you ignoring that Senate Democrats can easily stop anything their counter parts wishes to pass?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Because there is no other solution really. Try to be tougher and Iran just steps out and potentially restarts is nuclear program. The only recourse would be an invasion of Iran (a wet dream for the likes of Bolton and Pompeo), but with this admin that would probably go even worse than Iraq. This Iran deal is it, it is the best option and the Republicans sure as hell know it, which is why they have kept their mouth shut and silently pray that Trump doesn't break it. Just look at how vocal they were under Obama, and how deadly quiet they are now while in full control of the government.
Agreed. Without a shadow of a doubt, in a conventional war, the USA knocks Iran into the middle of tomorrow every time.
But 3 factors are crucial here.
1. Like you say, nobody wants another Iraq and ISIL style groups filling the vacuum. Iran is a known quantity, regardless of what you think of the current regime.
2. How would Russia react? Does the USA want thousands of Russian 'tourists' descending on Iran?
3. Any war would create another massive headache of a refugee crisis that would destabilise the entire region.
Can the USA win? Yes. Do they want another dumpster fire to put out? Hell no.
John Bolton should be locked away in some Alaskan log cabin for a few years.
1. Yup,pretty much going to be another 10 year bloody commitment.
2. I don't know if Russia would actually send men, as it would offer little benefit, more likely Russia would just funnel weapons and encourage Caucasian extremists to go to Iran.
3.That really depends, I think most countries would just close their borders on account of them being Iranian Shiites, when it comes to Syria most are Sunni for its neighbours. The only real option is Iraq for most.
And locking Bolton away in Alaska will only backfire, with him returning at the head of an army of walruses, obviously cowed by the most walrusy of walrus moustaches
but I spent 4-5 hours of my life watching John Kerry at the Congress and Senate hearings on the Iran deal.
I'm not John Kerry's greatest fan, but he argued the case well.
When he asked the GOP what they would do differently, they had FETHING nothing. No reply. Bluster and bullgak to a man and woman. Marco Rubio was a disgrace, out of his depth.
God Almighty, you can't run a superpower like that.
hence why we have a President where an approval rating above 40% is seens as a record high and congressional approval rating in the teens.
The GOP has proven rather conclusively that it has no plans to govern and is incapable of actually ruling. With literally every branch of government under their control, they cant seem do anything except "tax cuts" and "undo anything Obama did". They seemingly have no agenda they can rally behind and push now that they have the responsibility of governing.
Why are you ignoring that Senate Democrats can easily stop anything their counter parts wishes to pass?
Mostly because of the fact that most of the GOP's agenda implosions have not fundamentally been attributable to the Senate Democrats. They have had plenty of issues with their own membership not just in the Senate but more importantly the House, while the administration undercuts itself regularly. Much like Trump bemoaning Democrat intransigence for his lack of appointee confirmations...it doesnt stick when youre not sending people for confirmation for the Democrats to even attempt to obstruct, and lets not forget the gakshow the House has become and how being Majority Leader was no prize office for Boehner or Ryan. The GOP isn't able to manage its own. Even in the senate, we have all the procedural games played with Reconciliation to allow for straight majority votes instead needing 60, where they wouldnt need a single Democrat, that they failed to wrangle their own people on board for.
In such a light, it is hard to see where it is the Senate Democrats (in the minority and without a tie breaker vote) standing in the way of the GOP as the great unconquerable barrier, easily stopping anything the GOP wishes to pass as a result.
but I spent 4-5 hours of my life watching John Kerry at the Congress and Senate hearings on the Iran deal.
I'm not John Kerry's greatest fan, but he argued the case well.
When he asked the GOP what they would do differently, they had FETHING nothing. No reply. Bluster and bullgak to a man and woman. Marco Rubio was a disgrace, out of his depth.
God Almighty, you can't run a superpower like that.
hence why we have a President where an approval rating above 40% is seens as a record high and congressional approval rating in the teens.
The GOP has proven rather conclusively that it has no plans to govern and is incapable of actually ruling. With literally every branch of government under their control, they cant seem do anything except "tax cuts" and "undo anything Obama did". They seemingly have no agenda they can rally behind and push now that they have the responsibility of governing.
Why are you ignoring that Senate Democrats can easily stop anything their counter parts wishes to pass?
Mostly because of the fact that most of the GOP's agenda implosions have not fundamentally been attributable to the Senate Democrats. They have had plenty of issues with their own membership not just in the Senate but more importantly the House, while the administration undercuts itself regularly. Much like Trump bemoaning Democrat intransigence for his lack of appointee confirmations...it doesnt stick when youre not sending people for confirmation for the Democrats to even attempt to obstruct, and lets not forget the gakshow the House has become and how being Majority Leader was no prize office for Boehner or Ryan. The GOP isn't able to manage its own. Even in the senate, we have all the procedural games played with Reconciliation to allow for straight majority votes instead needing 60, where they wouldnt need a single Democrat, that they failed to wrangle their own people on board for.
With respect to repealing Obamacare... yeah, you're not wrong there.
However, the House passed a feth tons of bills over the years, it's the Senate that's the stick in the mud.
But, don't forget the Democrats are utilizing every procedural tool to slow down the Senate, as it's their prerogative.
In such a light, it is hard to see where it is the Senate Democrats (in the minority and without a tie breaker vote) standing in the way of the GOP as the great unconquerable barrier, easily stopping anything the GOP wishes to pass as a result.
Mitch would fully have to go nuclear (meaning no more 60th vote), which he doesn't want to do. Otherwise, the minority holds considerable sway whether or not a bill gets to the floor.
The timing of all this to come public just after the biggest anti-Iran hawk was confirmed as SoS makes me just a bit skeptical about anything Israel has to say.
Its Israel and Pompeo/Bolton who are doing the deceiving here.
Deceiving "how"? Seems like the Obama-bros and supporters are trying to gaslight everyone...
There is zero proof Iran has violated the Iran deal. All these documents show is that Iran tried to develop a nuke before the deal and zero evidence they worked on it after the deal.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Absolutely. But there is some real credit there for both learning from previous mistakes and creating a bipartisan compromise. Oddly enough these things are anathema to the modern GOP. Reagan's party indeed.
Yep. Since then we've had 3 tax cuts under Republican presidents, and they all followed the model of the '81 tax cut, just an unfunded cut with a claim it won't bust the budget because of Laffer curve magic. Every time, the result was big deficit increases.
Slight change of subject, I read a funny thing recently. The Trump tax cut is very unpopular, under 30% approval. Which is interesting because its functionally no different to the two tax cuts under Bush, where small middle class tax cuts were used to deflect from large cuts for the wealthiest, and the whole thing was paid for with debt, and those were pretty popular because hey, free money. But this time, with the Trump tax cut, not only is the whole thing unpopular, it's managed to be less popular than the tax increases GHW Bush and Clinton passed.
Something has changed, when a tax cut is less popular than previous tax increases.
Thing is, Bush is strongly associated with the 2008 crash. And while it's far from his fault exclusively it's also pretty fair to make that connection. And when people are making that connection, those tax cuts are what comes to mind first. People still remember that recession keenly, especially millenials who are still being screwed by it. It's also a more direct slap in the face when the wealthy get permanent cuts while the ones for the rest of us are temporary (and it's well known).
Another factor is that more or less everyone knows our economic system is biased for the rich, which matters more now because of attitude towards them. I imagine it's difficult to see from an outsider perspective but there is a lot of simmering resentment against the rich that doesn't come up solely because the economy is doing well right now. They have hit the point of running out of scape goats. Finally, Trump represents the rich businessman and we both know where his approval is at.
The great irony is how the wealthy are cultivating their own demise. Like gun advocates but on a much bigger scale.
d-usa wrote: The timing of all this to come public just after the biggest anti-Iran hawk was confirmed as SoS makes me just a bit skeptical about anything Israel has to say.
That is worth noting... I'll give you that.
Trump has always wanted to get out of this agreement, so ample salt is required...especially when Pompeo was nominated as next SoS. A cynic take, would be to assuming that Pompeo asked Israel to provide some cover/excuse that would allow Trump to back out*.
*unless some judge in Hawaii issues an injunction for claiming that Trump doesn't have that power.
d-usa wrote: Honestly, for me the only reason these two main discussions (NRA and/or Reagon) even matter is because they expose a certain level of hypocrisy that simply annoy me.
The NRA will take any opportunity to rail against any law or regulation that creates a gun-free zone, makes it clear that anyone in a gun free zone makes him or herself vulnerable because criminals will always target gun-free zones, that nobody should walk in a gun-free zone, and that people would never advertise their home as a gun-free zone. But because they like Pence they will roll over and sanction a gun-free zone rather than just throwing a live video feed on a screen at the convention.
If you are a politician in favor of gun-free zones, they will throw money and resources into your state until the cows come home to make sure you are defeated because you are a threat to everything this country stands for. If you are a politician they like and you want to speak at their convention, they will throw up the "no guns allowed" sign faster than speed at which Trump pours Ketchup on his well-done steaks.
You're making a disingenuous argument here. The "Gun Free Zones" that the NRA objects to are nothing like what is happening at the convention. The Secret Service isn't going to demand a gun free zone for Pence's safety and then enforce it by only putting a sign in the lobby that says No Guns and has a picture of a pistol with a red circle with a line through it over it. The Secret Service will have armed security at all the entrances with metal detectors/wands and pat downs to make sure nobody brings a gun into the convention hall and the VP is protected. Marjory Stoneman Douglas was already a gun free zone but declaring a place to be a gun free zone doesn't actually do anything to keep guns out of the zone, it just creates a false sense of security. The majority of mass shootings occur in unenforced gun free zones so why is creating more unenforced gun free zones a good idea and why shouldn't the NRA oppose a solution that is demonstrably not effective in preventing murders?
When the NRA proposes policies like allowing faculty to be armed or assigning more armed LEOs or RSOs to schools it's dismissed as unworkable and intolerable. Yet armed security screenings are effective. Night clubs and strip clubs have armed bouncers at the door that will wand you and pat you down to make sure nobody brings a weapon into the building. They don't want arguments between patrons to escalate into lethal violence so they take the necessary measures to keep patrons from bringing weapons inside. At the Pulse shooting the first victims of the gunman were the armed guards at the door whom he shot from across the parking lot. The nightclub had its' security focused on stopping the commonplace arguments between patrons from involving weapons and not anticipating the extremely rare occurrence of a mass shooting so their guards were standing outside the door in the open. Ideally there would be some type of guardroom or vestibule in which security screenings would be done without exposing the guards. Club owners do more to keep weapons out of clubs than school boards do to keep weapons out of schools. As long as schools are completely unsecured premises where anyone can walk onto campus and enter a building it doesn't matter what laws are passed or what signs are posted, the students aren't protected from an attacker.
The gun walked onto Marjory Stoneman Douglas' campus, carrying an AR15 in a duffle bag, entered a building, pulled out the rifle and started murdering people. Why are we focusing on the AR15? Columbine and Virginia tech were the same thing, gunman walks into a school and starts murdering unarmed people until somebody who can shoot back shows up but those incidents didn't involve AR15s. We could ban AR15s tomorrow and at best it will have a slight tangential effect on school safety. You're in Oklahoma, try going onto OU's campus, go into the football building and try to walk right into Lincoln Riley's office and take a selfie with him. You'll likely run into layers of administration and security that will actively try to stop you. Then try going to any K-12 public school in your community and see if you can enter building, walk down the hall, go into a classroom and take a selfie with the teacher. How many obstacles will you encounter in the school?
For some reason it's unbearable to have students go through security screenings at schools but it's perfectly acceptable for those same children to go through security screenings at an airport along with everyone else. Having kids have their bags examines, their bodies scanned and possibly enduring a pat down just to take a commercial flight isn't too traumatizing or upsetting and doesn't ruin the flying experience. The NRA suggests using the same methods we use to secure things like nightclubs, airplanes and football coaches to secure something far more valuable, our children, and they're the bad guys?
You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
Relapse wrote: Lots of hypocracy in the media and the anti gun lobby talking against guns because, ,”guns kill”, when alcohol is responsible for as many drunk driver deaths per year as are people murdered in gun related incidents. Add to that, overall alcohol kills 88,000 people per year, yet no where near the out rage as against guns. Quite the opposite, if advertisements for alcohol are anything to go by.
The difference is that alcohol is not designed to kill, while that is a very large part of the design philosophy of guns.
The Auld Grump - amazing how a device designed to kill is sometimes used to kill people....
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
On the topic of shootings, schools, etc, may I suggest that perhaps the issue is neither guns nor security measures, but something else?
My grandfather brought firearms to school on a regular basis and just stacked them in the corner of the room to go plinking or rodent hunting after class. He could mail order machineguns to his door via the USPS without background checks or age requirements or NFA paperwork. His schools had no resource officers, and teachers were not armed. And yet...nobody walked through school hallways or nightclubs trying to kill as many people as possible.
What has changed in society, such that some people find that committing such acts to be acceptable recourse to their grievances?
Whether its stalking the halls of a high school with an AR15 or running people down with a rental truck in the streets, why do outliers see this course of action as viable and desireable, when in previous eras they did not? Especially when average levels of daily violence have been decreasing for decades.
I suspect that addressing that question may prove far more productive than gun bans or security measures or whatnot. That said, there is unlikely to be a simple compelling solution that fits into preexisting narratives, but if we really want to see a change, I feel thats where we should look first.
As much as I contributed to the general area of the topic, we should probably leave general discussion about gun control and gun violence out of this thread. I didn't mean to start a separate gun control discussion, I merely meant to comment on what I see as a double standard by one organization.
Relapse wrote: Lots of hypocracy in the media and the anti gun lobby talking against guns because, ,”guns kill”, when alcohol is responsible for as many drunk driver deaths per year as are people murdered in gun related incidents. Add to that, overall alcohol kills 88,000 people per year, yet no where near the out rage as against guns. Quite the opposite, if advertisements for alcohol are anything to go by.
The difference is that alcohol is not designed to kill, while that is a very large part of the design philosophy of guns.
The Auld Grump - amazing how a device designed to kill is sometimes used to kill people....
Better to just leave it be, the guns-alcohol comparison will always be irrelevant because they simply aren't the same at all.
Vaktathi wrote: On the topic of shootings, schools, etc, may I suggest that perhaps the issue is neither guns nor security measures, but something else?
My grandfather brought firearms to school on a regular basis and just stacked them in the corner of the room to go plinking or rodent hunting after class. He could mail order machineguns to his door via the USPS without background checks or age requirements or NFA paperwork. His schools had no resource officers, and teachers were not armed. And yet...nobody walked through school hallways or nightclubs trying to kill as many people as possible.
What has changed in society, such that some people find that committing such acts to be acceptable recourse to their grievances?
Whether its stalking the halls of a high school with an AR15 or running people down with a rental truck in the streets, why do outliers see this course of action as viable and desireable, when in previous eras they did not? Especially when average levels of daily violence have been decreasing for decades.
I suspect that addressing that question may prove far more productive than gun bans or security measures or whatnot. That said, there is unlikely to be a simple compelling solution that fits into preexisting narratives, but if we really want to see a change, I feel thats where we should look first.
The most deadly attack on a school in history was probably during your Grandpa's day and age. I don't know him so I don't know for sure.... but.....
We glorify it in ways we didn't use to. Combine with US culture placing value on fame of any sort; dying in infamy is seen as a better outcome than living in obscurity. It's rarely stated explicitly but it isn't hard to see it. Take a gun to a school and fire it you'll make national news, actually hit someone and it's national news for a week, kill a few people and it's a month in the spotlight. Constrast with a culutre that has a different value system, like Japan, where the same type of person kills just themself instead.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
No other country comparable to the US has had a guaranteed right for citizens to be armed throughout it's existence so comparable nations really aren't comparable.
And multiple SCotUS opinions have affirmed that the 2nd amendment protects individual ownership of firearms.
Spoiler:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) - The court ruled Scott did not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights because of his racial background. However, in its ruling, it implies all free men do have the right to bear arms by indicating what would happen if he was indeed afforded full protection:
"It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:
"We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - The Court stated in part:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) - A Supreme Court case which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial at the state level as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. In a concurring opinion by Justice Hugo Black, he used a statement by Senator Howard, who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment, to help validate the Court's ruling that the Bill of Rights as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment forces states, and not just the federal government, to protect the same individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights:
"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution ...the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms..."
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990) - A case dealing with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are "the People" when referred to in the Constitution:[5]
"[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
As well as numerous state court cases:
Spoiler:
Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. Bliss has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
Aymette v. State[edit]
In Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, 156 (1840), the Tennessee Supreme Court construed the guarantee in Tennessee’s 1834 Constitution that “ ‘the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.’ ” Explaining that the provision was adopted with the same goals as the Federal Constitution’s Second Amendment , the court wrote: “The words ‘bear arms’ … have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment.”
1. The act of 1837-8, ch. 137, sec. 2, which prohibits any person from wearing any bowie knife, or Arkansas tooth-pick, or other knife or weapon in form, shape or size resembling a bowie knife or Arkansas tooth-pick under his clothes, or concealed about his person, does not conflict with the 26th section of the first article of the bill of rights, securing to the free white citizens the right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.
2. The arms, the right to keep and bear which is secured by the constitution, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and constitute the ordinary military equipment; the legislature have the power to prohibit the keeping or wearing weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare.
3. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defense, is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand, and the rulers on the other; and although this right must be inviolably preserved, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.
Nunn v. Georgia[edit]
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in Nunn v. Georgia (1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)) that a state law ban on handguns was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[20] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court said Nunn, "Perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause."[21]
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!”
Wilson v. State of Arkansas[edit]
In Wilson v. State of Arkansas (Ark., 1878),[28] the Arkansas Supreme Court dealt with a conviction arising under an Arkansas state law which prohibited a person from carrying a pistol except upon his own premises or when on a journey, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, the same law addressed in the Buzzard[29] decision of 1848.
At trial, Wilson was indicted and convicted of the act, and appealed to the state supreme court. The court reversed the trial court's decision citing an array of state decisions which permitted the state to regulate the manner of carrying a concealed weapon, but that the law at issue restricting such action to one's own premises, while on a journey, or when acting in aid of an officer was constitutionally invalid. The Wilson decision effectively overturned the prior holding in Buzzard. The opinion, authored by Chief Justice English, included the following assertion:
No doubt in time of peace, persons might be prohibited from wearing war arms to places of public worship, or elections, etc. But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.[30]
Salina v. Blaksley[edit]
In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court, in Salina v. Blaksley,[31] became the first court to interpret the right to keep and bear arms as being only a collective right.[32] The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"
In 2010, Salina v. Blaksley was overruled by the passage of an amendment to the Kansas State Constitution. The amendment provides:
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose.[33]
People v. Aguilar[edit]
In 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar held that a total ban on carrying firearms outside the home violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. Applying Heller, McDonald, and Moore v. Madigan (a Seventh Circuit decision), the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Aguilar, stating that the right to self-defense was at the core of the Second Amendment.[34]
d-usa wrote: As much as I contributed to the general area of the topic, we should probably leave general discussion about gun control and gun violence out of this thread. I didn't mean to start a separate gun control discussion, I merely meant to comment on what I see as a double standard by one organization.
Fair enough, I'll drop it since it wasn't your intent to initiate a discussion on it. However, some people seem to think that "gun control" is going to be a big issue in the midterms so it may come up again later.
Relapse wrote: Lots of hypocracy in the media and the anti gun lobby talking against guns because, ,”guns kill”, when alcohol is responsible for as many drunk driver deaths per year as are people murdered in gun related incidents. Add to that, overall alcohol kills 88,000 people per year, yet no where near the out rage as against guns. Quite the opposite, if advertisements for alcohol are anything to go by.
The difference is that alcohol is not designed to kill, while that is a very large part of the design philosophy of guns.
The Auld Grump - amazing how a device designed to kill is sometimes used to kill people....
Better to just leave it be, the guns-alcohol comparison will always be irrelevant because they simply aren't the same at all.
I think it's quite apt since we have students walking out of school in order to protest gun violence and ignoring the fact that alcohol is responsible for around 3400 deaths of children per year and 120,000 being sent the ER per year.
For something not designed to kill, alcohol does a pretty good job of killing people.
This is why I find the arguments of gun control advocates hypocritical in the extreme. Guns are villified, yet alcohol, which causes carnage on a far greater scale is glorified in the media, and the companies that produce it are supported by many gun control advocates through their purchases.
A very obvious double standard.
Relapse wrote: Lots of hypocracy in the media and the anti gun lobby talking against guns because, ,”guns kill”, when alcohol is responsible for as many drunk driver deaths per year as are people murdered in gun related incidents. Add to that, overall alcohol kills 88,000 people per year, yet no where near the out rage as against guns. Quite the opposite, if advertisements for alcohol are anything to go by.
The difference is that alcohol is not designed to kill, while that is a very large part of the design philosophy of guns.
The Auld Grump - amazing how a device designed to kill is sometimes used to kill people....
Better to just leave it be, the guns-alcohol comparison will always be irrelevant because they simply aren't the same at all.
I think it's quite apt since we have students walking out of school in order to protest gun violence and ignoring the fact that alcohol is responsible for around 3400 deaths of children per year and 120,000 being sent the ER per year.
For something not designed to kill, alcohol does a pretty good job of killing people.
This is why I find the arguments of gun control advocates hypocritical in the extreme. Guns are villified, yet alcohol, which causes carnage on a far greater scale is glorified in the media, and the companies that produce it are supported by many gun control advocates through their purchases.
A very obvious double standard.
More people died in the US in 2001 of food poisoning than on 9/11. Did you see anyone funding a whole new agency and promote an invasion of another couple of countries over it?
Sometimes a single dramatic event does more to galvinize a population than deaths over a period of time.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
Relapse wrote: Lots of hypocracy in the media and the anti gun lobby talking against guns because, ,”guns kill”, when alcohol is responsible for as many drunk driver deaths per year as are people murdered in gun related incidents. Add to that, overall alcohol kills 88,000 people per year, yet no where near the out rage as against guns. Quite the opposite, if advertisements for alcohol are anything to go by.
The difference is that alcohol is not designed to kill, while that is a very large part of the design philosophy of guns.
The Auld Grump - amazing how a device designed to kill is sometimes used to kill people....
Better to just leave it be, the guns-alcohol comparison will always be irrelevant because they simply aren't the same at all.
I think it's quite apt since we have students walking out of school in order to protest gun violence and ignoring the fact that alcohol is responsible for around 3400 deaths of children per year and 120,000 being sent the ER per year.
For something not designed to kill, alcohol does a pretty good job of killing people.
This is why I find the arguments of gun control advocates hypocritical in the extreme. Guns are villified, yet alcohol, which causes carnage on a far greater scale is glorified in the media, and the companies that produce it are supported by many gun control advocates through their purchases.
A very obvious double standard.
No, it isn't, because they aren't the same thing. That's like saying heart attacks should be treated the same way gun violence is. The only reason to even make the comparison is to deflect from the main discussion where gun advocates are both losing and very bad at advocating for guns.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
Oh man, I wish I was as smart as you guys. If you had asked me, I'd have said that when you guys started this gun discussion you wouldn't have been able to resolve it. No one has ever been able to before! And yet here you are practically there! I'd be astounded if the gun talk continued another page even! It's gonna be different this time for sure, because you guys wouldn't do this again only to have the same conclusion as literally every other time this has been attempted ever before!
I gotta go get the others and make sure everyone knows! This is going to be awesome!
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extremely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extrem[spoiler]ely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
I'm sorry...what? How can they irrelevant? o.O
Because it doesn't fit his argument.
He’s also choosing to ignore federal and state court precedent affirming the 2A protects the individual right to own firearms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If the militia is defined, it is only able bodied males.
So now you must pass an annual physical to own guns!
Bubba was t always obese and diabetic. It says you have to be able bodied to join the militia but it doesn’t say you lose your 2A rights if you get fat later. RAW interpretation still wins.
The Trump administration reportedly will not follow an Obama-era executive order that requires it to release a yearly report on the number of civilians and enemy fighters killed by U.S. anti-terrorism strikes.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extrem[spoiler]ely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
I'm sorry...what? How can they irrelevant? o.O
Because it doesn't fit his argument.
He’s also choosing to ignore federal and state court precedent affirming the 2A protects the individual right to own firearms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If the militia is defined, it is only able bodied males.
So now you must pass an annual physical to own guns!
Bubba was t always obese and diabetic. It says you have to be able bodied to join the militia but it doesn’t say you lose your 2A rights if you get fat later. RAW interpretation still wins.
In my desire to type quickly (to get out of the house and do errands), I failed to fully type out my argument.
See in the lofty days of the first half of the 20th century, advocacy groups argued, in essence, that "we the people" were allowed to individually own firearms by the goodwill of the government. Congress could, at any time, create a law that nullifies large parts of 2A, particularly the clauses that have been interpreted to mean personal ownership. Basically, 2A was something they did not take for granted, and argued from principles of "we must behave responsibly if we are to maintain this right." After Heller, these arguments shifted, and 2A became this unassailable right, even more protected than even the first. People today are taking for granted that Congress could write new legislation that better defines things and ultimately legislate out portions of, or all of 2A rights.
The second part, Yes, there is an unorganized militia. In my example, Bubba Ray is not part of "the militia" because he is inelligible for service. This is defined in that same law elsewhere. Under the definitions of the law, I'm not even a part of the militia owing to how I have fulfilled service obligations and have medical exemptions now. In short, the unorganized militia per definitions of the Acts which govern the National Guard and its formations, are those who are eligible for drafting. Locally formed 3% "militias" simply are not such under the law. You can't create an organization, call yourself a militia and actually be one, as defined.
The Trump administration reportedly will not follow an Obama-era executive order that requires it to release a yearly report on the number of civilians and enemy fighters killed by U.S. anti-terrorism strikes.
The Trump administration reportedly will not follow an Obama-era executive order that requires it to release a yearly report on the number of civilians and enemy fighters killed by U.S. anti-terrorism strikes.
The Trump administration reportedly will not follow an Obama-era executive order that requires it to release a yearly report on the number of civilians and enemy fighters killed by U.S. anti-terrorism strikes.
How accurate were the reports? If we really know how many civilians are dying in US strike as collateral damage I think we should be up front about it and publicize the information. Avoiding bad PR isn’t a valid reason to put the truth out there about what’s being done on behalf of the country. However if the reports are just rough guesses like if we’re only putting out a range of somewhere between 8-250 people died I’m not sure how useful the reports are. We shouldn’t deny that it happens but if the reports aren’t accurate and we’re just churning the reports out for the sake of producing them I don’t see the point.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You end up just shifting the problem. Would every library, convenience store, sports club and mall need airport security (as if the TSA is foolproof)? What prevents an attacker from just hosing down a school bus as kids exit it to start school? Who is going to pay for all that? More economic growth from another tax cut? Its completely unworkable and incredibly expensive. You're never going to find people that are fully alert all the time, any attacker has the benefit of surprise, like you said, who is going to expect an extrem[spoiler]ely rare occurrence?
A free and open society is always going to be a society full of soft targets and vulnerabilities that's never going to change. The issue is that if we as a society in the US are concerned with stopping mass shootings at schools then we should take steps to make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. However, while we claim to want that work towards that goal many of the proposed actions to achieve don't do anything to make schools safer from mass murderers and the actions that would actually help prevent mass killings in schools are actively shunned, dismissed and undermined. If we want to solve a problem then let's solve it instead of using it as a shoddy excuse to pursue an entirely different goal that is only tangentially related to the stated goal.
Funny how damn near every country that is comparable to ours has figured this problem out.
Also, as it's relevant to the discussion, Until the Heller case, people operated under the assumption that the individual ability to own a hunting rifle, pistol, shotgun, or any other firearm was a privilege due to the implicit understanding that "The Militia" is clearly defined by the law. (hint: Bubba Ray who's 350 lbs and basically diabetic, is NOT the militia, despite wearing camo on the weekends when he goes into the woods with his other flag wavin redneck goons)
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
People just seems to forget or handwave section (b)(2)...
Hence the Heller ruling.
And you, as usual, are completely ignoring the first dame line of that quote that defines who is actually in the militia. The classes of the militia that you so carefully underlined are irrelevant to that point. So, no, Ensis's Bubba Ray is not in the militia as he would not meet the "able-bodied" requirement.
I'm sorry...what? How can they irrelevant? o.O
Because it doesn't fit his argument.
He’s also choosing to ignore federal and state court precedent affirming the 2A protects the individual right to own firearms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If the militia is defined, it is only able bodied males.
So now you must pass an annual physical to own guns!
Bubba was t always obese and diabetic. It says you have to be able bodied to join the militia but it doesn’t say you lose your 2A rights if you get fat later. RAW interpretation still wins.
In my desire to type quickly (to get out of the house and do errands), I failed to fully type out my argument.
See in the lofty days of the first half of the 20th century, advocacy groups argued, in essence, that "we the people" were allowed to individually own firearms by the goodwill of the government. Congress could, at any time, create a law that nullifies large parts of 2A, particularly the clauses that have been interpreted to mean personal ownership. Basically, 2A was something they did not take for granted, and argued from principles of "we must behave responsibly if we are to maintain this right." After Heller, these arguments shifted, and 2A became this unassailable right, even more protected than even the first. People today are taking for granted that Congress could write new legislation that better defines things and ultimately legislate out portions of, or all of 2A rights.
The second part, Yes, there is an unorganized militia. In my example, Bubba Ray is not part of "the militia" because he is inelligible for service. This is defined in that same law elsewhere. Under the definitions of the law, I'm not even a part of the militia owing to how I have fulfilled service obligations and have medical exemptions now. In short, the unorganized militia per definitions of the Acts which govern the National Guard and its formations, are those who are eligible for drafting. Locally formed 3% "militias" simply are not such under the law. You can't create an organization, call yourself a militia and actually be one, as defined.
Wrong. SCOTUS has consistently interpreted 2A as protecting the individual right to own firearms from Federal infringement. We have over 150 years of federal and state precedent that shows that.
And multiple SCotUS opinions have affirmed that the 2nd amendment protects individual ownership of firearms.
Spoiler:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) - The court ruled Scott did not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights because of his racial background. However, in its ruling, it implies all free men do have the right to bear arms by indicating what would happen if he was indeed afforded full protection:
"It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:
"We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - The Court stated in part:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) - A Supreme Court case which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial at the state level as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. In a concurring opinion by Justice Hugo Black, he used a statement by Senator Howard, who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment, to help validate the Court's ruling that the Bill of Rights as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment forces states, and not just the federal government, to protect the same individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights:
"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution ...the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms..."
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990) - A case dealing with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are "the People" when referred to in the Constitution:[5]
"[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
As well as numerous state court cases:
Spoiler:
Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. Bliss has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
Aymette v. State[edit]
In Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, 156 (1840), the Tennessee Supreme Court construed the guarantee in Tennessee’s 1834 Constitution that “ ‘the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.’ ” Explaining that the provision was adopted with the same goals as the Federal Constitution’s Second Amendment , the court wrote: “The words ‘bear arms’ … have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment.”
1. The act of 1837-8, ch. 137, sec. 2, which prohibits any person from wearing any bowie knife, or Arkansas tooth-pick, or other knife or weapon in form, shape or size resembling a bowie knife or Arkansas tooth-pick under his clothes, or concealed about his person, does not conflict with the 26th section of the first article of the bill of rights, securing to the free white citizens the right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.
2. The arms, the right to keep and bear which is secured by the constitution, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and constitute the ordinary military equipment; the legislature have the power to prohibit the keeping or wearing weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare.
3. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defense, is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand, and the rulers on the other; and although this right must be inviolably preserved, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.
Nunn v. Georgia[edit]
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in Nunn v. Georgia (1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)) that a state law ban on handguns was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[20] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court said Nunn, "Perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause."[21]
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!”
Wilson v. State of Arkansas[edit]
In Wilson v. State of Arkansas (Ark., 1878),[28] the Arkansas Supreme Court dealt with a conviction arising under an Arkansas state law which prohibited a person from carrying a pistol except upon his own premises or when on a journey, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, the same law addressed in the Buzzard[29] decision of 1848.
At trial, Wilson was indicted and convicted of the act, and appealed to the state supreme court. The court reversed the trial court's decision citing an array of state decisions which permitted the state to regulate the manner of carrying a concealed weapon, but that the law at issue restricting such action to one's own premises, while on a journey, or when acting in aid of an officer was constitutionally invalid. The Wilson decision effectively overturned the prior holding in Buzzard. The opinion, authored by Chief Justice English, included the following assertion:
No doubt in time of peace, persons might be prohibited from wearing war arms to places of public worship, or elections, etc. But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.[30]
Salina v. Blaksley[edit]
In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court, in Salina v. Blaksley,[31] became the first court to interpret the right to keep and bear arms as being only a collective right.[32] The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"
In 2010, Salina v. Blaksley was overruled by the passage of an amendment to the Kansas State Constitution. The amendment provides:
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose.[33]
People v. Aguilar[edit]
In 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar held that a total ban on carrying firearms outside the home violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. Applying Heller, McDonald, and Moore v. Madigan (a Seventh Circuit decision), the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Aguilar, stating that the right to self-defense was at the core of the Second Amendment.[34]
They will do everything to avoid a personal interview, but in the end declining will only make matters look worse. Trump himself seemed less phased by it in the past than his lawyers.
!
