Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Cite it please.

Cite what? My personal opinion that the federal government should have most of the power and states should be limited?

Well... that ass'ed backwards with our version of federalism.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Cite it please.

Cite what? My personal opinion that the federal government should have most of the power and states should be limited?

My opinion is just the opposite, The country was founded on limited central govt. It can be messy but local control to me seems more just than rule from far off.

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Cite it please.

Cite what? My personal opinion that the federal government should have most of the power and states should be limited?

Well... that ass'ed backwards with our version of federalism.

The whole point of ditching the Articles for the Constitution was because a system where the States can override the Federal state on a whim is a system that doesn't work.

The Constitution even then wasn't (and still isn't) about which is more powerful but about what one can do and what it can't do. The moment the 14th was ratified, your Civil Rights as protected by the Constitution became Universal. Neither the Fed nor the State or Local governments can ignore them. That didn't even end Federalism. If anything classical American Federalism ended with the Civil War because turns out it still didn't work, it just lasted longer than the Articles.

 LordofHats wrote:

whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
And it all went downhill from here;

This first five words of this amendment, “Congress shall make no law”, basically removes everything that follows from the field of federal jurisdiction. If Congress can make “no law” then there is “no law” for the president to enforce and there is “no law” for the Supreme Court or federal courts to rule upon.

This guy has a really brain dead idea about how jurisprudence works.

Not really.

He's pining for the days where State's rights is a thing. Whereas today... we allow the Feds to trample them in many cases.

1) States Rights wasn't a thing until 1840 (the states didn't have rights in the Founder's conception, there were just things the Fed could do and everything else it couldn't)

Huh?

State's Rights was always a "thing" since it's formation.

oO

You can argue events over time eroded that concept.

2) Even then States Rights wasn't really a thing so much as an argument that started in the North about the expansion of Slavery in the territories that translated after 1867 into "bad fed govment rawr"

Wasn't there acrimony between the state and federal government over tariffs (breadbasket south) and all that?

3) There will be a law whether the piece of paper says "no law" or not because the whole point of putting it on paper in the first place was because the Founders weren't dumb enough to think Congress would never try. And even then we've had to past protection laws anyway because the States keep trying.

Huh again?

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights were to satisfy those who didn't think the original constitution went far enough to restrict the federal government.

4) The Supreme Court by definition is "supreme" and has full jurisdiction to rule on any law that comes in front of it

That wasn't his point.

His point was that, had we truly abided by the constitution (or at least, not liberalize the Commerce Clause), there wouldn't be federal statutes to begin with.

5) That whole thing basically reads out as a "damn government won't let me establish state sponsored religion to hell with the 14th" which is equally stupid because there is no good argument that its okay for the state legislature to trample my Civil Rights when the Federal government can't

O.o now who's looking silly here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Cite it please.

Cite what? My personal opinion that the federal government should have most of the power and states should be limited?

Well... that ass'ed backwards with our version of federalism.

The whole point of ditching the Articles for the Constitution was because a system where the States can override the Federal state on a whim is a system that doesn't work.

The Constitution even then wasn't (and still isn't) about which is more powerful but about what one can do and what it can't do. The moment the 14th was ratified, your Civil Rights as protected by the Constitution became Universal. Neither the Fed nor the State or Local governments can ignore them. That didn't even end Federalism. If anything classical American Federalism ended with the Civil War because turns out it still didn't work, it just lasted longer than the Articles.

How do you figure that the 14th amendment ended the classical American Federalism?

I know you're a history major... but, why can't federalism exist in today's structure?

 whembly wrote:

The Founders knew the greatest threat to the liberty of the people was a national government that would constantly attempt to expand its powers. They did not want the federal government to serve as “watchdog” over the States. Their view was that each State would guard the freedom of their people and when this did not happen that pressure would build up at a State level and that correction would come at a State level without interference from the federal government.

Heh. While the idea of individual states having a great deal of freedom over their own affairs is a great idea it often goes way too far. The thing is that is often quite hard to pick out the exact point where the idea breaks. Here, helpfully, is that breaking point, the point where the only thing considered is state's rights.

This first five words of this amendment, “Congress shall make no law”, basically removes everything that follows from the field of federal jurisdiction. If Congress can make “no law” then there is “no law” for the president to enforce and there is “no law” for the Supreme Court or federal courts to rule upon.

As originally designed, freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition were completely left to the realm of the states and could not be prevented, molested, or controlled by the federal government in anyway. Talk about freedom!

And here we see a view of freedom considered entirely in the negative, where being able to do as you please is the only kind of freedom there is. The idea that a federal government might increase the freedom of individuals within states by ensuring that their states won't impact their freedoms by putting in place segregation or a state religion is not considered at all.

It actually layers the negative freedom fallacy on top of the above Fed only focus. It's like a babushka of mistakes about government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Verviedi wrote:
Right now in North Carolina.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/15/a-coup-a-power-grab-theres-some-serious-political-drama-in-north-carolina-right-now/?utm_term=.ae3189a87bb8

Sigh. Fething McCrory.

As I've been saying for a while now, the Republican party is not an ordinary political party anymore. It's a radical party, and that radicalism extends to dismantling ordinary democratic processes in order to protect or increase their own power. On a basic level this is really no different to threatening to hit the debt ceiling or refusing to hold a hearing on an Obama appointment to the Supreme Court. This is where the Republican party is at, and people need to start being honest about it.

You mean a matrioshka?

 Ustrello wrote:
Yeah pretty much anyone who voted for him got played as bad as the detective at the end of the usual suspects

I think Kayser Soze's plan was a hell of a lot more clever than what Trump came up with.

Although I guess at times Trump's speeches did feel a lot like he was just making it up based on what he saw around the room. "Cyber is very important, uh, (spots son sitting in audience), I have son who's good on computers..."

Trump does have a problem with big fat guys, like Kip Diskin.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You mean a matrioshka?

That's another name for them, yeah.

 whembly wrote:


State's Rights was always a "thing" since it's formation.

The phrase "states rights" appears in neither the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers (or even the anti-Federalist papers).

The concept of individual states having rights didn't exist until the after the Nullification Crisis (and really mostly because of it) and how you think of it today was basically invented by Jefferson Davis after the Civil War as part of the ongoing effort Southern Apologism. The Founders did not conceptualize the states as having rights. The people had rights, and their rights needed to be protected from the centralized state. The individual states were merely a manifestation of the people's rights. They had no rights unto themselves.

You can argue events over time eroded that concept.

I argue the concept never really existed. It was invented later as part of ongoing national debate about the strengthening of Central government during Reconstruction and Reconciliation. It is a fallacious notion of an "ideal state of things" that's never actually existed, i.e. it can't erode.

Wasn't there acrimony between the state and federal government over tariffs (breadbasket south) and all that?

One, the "South" was never the Bread basket. The middle states (PA, VA, Ohio, etc basically the ones along the Mason-Dixon line) provided substantial food surpluses, but most states were self-sufficient for the purposes of food because in the 19th century the US was a largely agrarian state. It made up most of our economy even into the early 20th century. The big debate over tariffs revolved around the import of manufactured goods, which the south could buy cheaper from Europe but that the North wanted them to buy from the North for obvious reasons.

And the acrimony was limited rather to major Slave states (Louisiana and South Carolina). They got support from the other slave states as sectionalism set in, but really no one else got their hackles that much into a bunch over it. The biggest acrimony between states from 1820 on wards was overwhelmingly the expansion of Slavery into the western territories, and all the moral debates about labor, liberty, and federal power that came with that conflict.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights were to satisfy those who didn't think the original constitution went far enough to restrict the federal government.

Yep, and shockingly the first nine don't talk about the states but the people, and the 10th, the only one to mention states at all, says;

powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.

People happily ignore those two clauses when complaining about the courts overreaching on the Commerce Clause or the 14th. The 10th never gave any unilateral power to the states. It didn't really give power to anyone. it was just a further clarification that the Federal state can't claim powers, because any powers it doesn't have belong to either the states or the people (with no specification as to which because it doesn't matter for the purposes of the Constitution).

That wasn't his point.

His point was "damn courts legislating from the bench." And;

His point was that, had we truly abided by the constitution (or at least, not liberalize the Commerce Clause), there wouldn't be federal statutes to begin with.

Yes we would, because by definition the Federal government can pass laws that are binding to the states.

How do you figure that the 14th amendment ended the classical American Federalism?

I didn't say it did (it did help though because it bound the states to the same Civil Rights rules as the Federal government in Clause 1 of its text);

I know you're a history major... but, why can't federalism exist in today's structure?

It can and does. But Federalism is not a state of absolute separation. It's a state of shared powers/partnership, which is basically how we've always operated. There were fundamental changes to that following Reconstruction and the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which specifically put restrictions on state powers most notably forcing them to abide by the same civil rights expectations as the Federal government. You might notice these later amendments include the clause "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." I.E. the Constitution from the moment those amendments were ratified allowed Congress to enforce our constitution rights with further laws should anyone (including states) try to do an end run around them. It was a huge new power for the Federal Government, especially in the 14th Amendment whose first clause forbids the states from passing laws to violate people's rights. But the states are still distinct entities from the Federal government with their own powers, and ours is still a Federal system.

Heh, if anyone out there still wants to defend Bush's cabinet as anything more that Mattis, plus Trump cronies, plus the gak - tiest parts of the Republican party, it sounds like Larry Kudlow will be chief economist.

As in the guy who printed in 2007;
"The recession debate is over. The Bush boom is alive and well." Most economists failed to pick the looming GFC, but Kudlow is perhaps unique in not just missing the GFC coming, but also deciding that the US was actually not just over the housing crisis but booming. He also thought there was a Bush boom, which by that point had been obviously wrong for about 5 years.

In any other political party, at any other time, in any other country, being that hopelessly wrong as that would be a real dent in your career. In the US in the Republican party in this era, Kudlow's willingness to say hopelessly stupid stuff not only isn't penalised, it's rewarded. Because in a political party that doesn't give a gak about reality, what you want is a guy who you can count on him to say whatever suits the Republican line. And now he's probably going to be Trump's chief economist.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:


State's Rights was always a "thing" since it's formation.

The phrase "states rights" appears in neither the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers (or even the anti-Federalist papers).

The concept of individual states having rights didn't exist until the after the Nullification Crisis (and really mostly because of it) and how you think of it today was basically invented by Jefferson Davis after the Civil War as part of the ongoing effort Southern Apologism. The Founders did not conceptualize the states as having rights. The people had rights, and their rights needed to be protected from the centralized state. The individual states were merely a manifestation of the people's rights. They had no rights unto themselves.

You can argue events over time eroded that concept.

I argue the concept never really existed. It was invented later as part of ongoing national debate about the strengthening of Central government during Reconstruction and Reconciliation. It is a fallacious notion of an "ideal state of things" that's never actually existed, i.e. it can't erode.

Wasn't there acrimony between the state and federal government over tariffs (breadbasket south) and all that?

One, the "South" was never the Bread basket. The middle states (PA, VA, Ohio, etc basically the ones along the Mason-Dixon line) provided substantial food surpluses, but most states were self-sufficient for the purposes of food because in the 19th century the US was a largely agrarian state. It made up most of our economy even into the early 20th century. The big debate over tariffs revolved around the import of manufactured goods, which the south could buy cheaper from Europe but that the North wanted them to buy from the North for obvious reasons.

And the acrimony was limited rather to major Slave states (Louisiana and South Carolina). They got support from the other slave states as sectionalism set in, but really no one else got their hackles that much into a bunch over it. The biggest acrimony between states from 1820 on wards was overwhelmingly the expansion of Slavery into the western territories, and all the moral debates about labor, liberty, and federal power that came with that conflict.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights were to satisfy those who didn't think the original constitution went far enough to restrict the federal government.

Yep, and shockingly the first nine don't talk about the states but the people, and the 10th, the only one to mention states at all, says;

powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.

People happily ignore those two clauses when complaining about the courts overreaching on the Commerce Clause or the 14th. The 10th never gave any unilateral power to the states. It didn't really give power to anyone. it was just a further clarification that the Federal state can't claim powers, because any powers it doesn't have belong to either the states or the people (with no specification as to which because it doesn't matter for the purposes of the Constitution).

That wasn't his point.

His point was "damn courts legislating from the bench." And;

His point was that, had we truly abided by the constitution (or at least, not liberalize the Commerce Clause), there wouldn't be federal statutes to begin with.

Yes we would, because by definition the Federal government can pass laws that are binding to the states.

How do you figure that the 14th amendment ended the classical American Federalism?

I didn't say it did (it did help though because it bound the states to the same Civil Rights rules as the Federal government in Clause 1 of its text);

I know you're a history major... but, why can't federalism exist in today's structure?

It can and does. But Federalism is not a state of absolute separation. It's a state of shared powers/partnership, which is basically how we've always operated. There were fundamental changes to that following Reconstruction and the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which specifically put restrictions on state powers most notably forcing them to abide by the same civil rights expectations as the Federal government. You might notice these later amendments include the clause "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." I.E. the Constitution from the moment those amendments were ratified allowed Congress to enforce our constitution rights with further laws should anyone (including states) try to do an end run around them. It was a huge new power for the Federal Government, especially in the 14th Amendment whose first clause forbids the states from passing laws to violate people's rights. But the states are still distinct entities from the Federal government with their own powers, and ours is still a Federal system.

You should preface these posts with "History with 'Hats!".

I understand the importance of the 14th, and how the SCoTUS using the incorporation doctrine in applying the Bill of Rights to the states via Due Process.

I see where you're coming from and I can see why you think I'm a rabid 10th amendment/state's rights honk.

Maybe I need to re-read the various federalist papers, but I always "took" the idea that the founders really did advocate stronger states relationship to the federal level... and it wasn't until the New Deal Era that began the massive growth in the Federal government.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
Heh, if anyone out there still wants to defend Bush's cabinet as anything more that Mattis, plus Trump cronies, plus the shittiest parts of the Republican party, it sounds like Larry Kudlow will be chief economist.

As in the guy who printed in 2007;
"The recession debate is over. The Bush boom is alive and well." Most economists failed to pick the looming GFC, but Kudlow is perhaps unique in not just missing the GFC coming, but also deciding that the US was actually not just over the housing crisis but booming. He also thought there was a Bush boom, which by that point had been obviously wrong for about 5 years.

In any other political party, at any other time, in any other country, being that hopelessly wrong as that would be a real dent in your career. In the US in the Republican party in this era, Kudlow's willingness to say hopelessly stupid stuff like the above is actually the only reason the guy gets work. Because you can count on him to believe whatever would be nicest for the the Republicans to believe. In a party that doesn't give a gak about reality, this has led to Kudlow's rapid rise through the ranks. And now he's probably going to be Trump's chief economist.

Well... at least he's not Carl Iconn...

But, yeah... Kudlow... :shudder:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Cite it please.

Cite what? My personal opinion that the federal government should have most of the power and states should be limited?

My opinion is just the opposite, The country was founded on limited central govt. It can be messy but local control to me seems more just than rule from far off.

Hello, I live in Southern Illinois! There is no difference between somebody 200 miles away telling me I cannot do something and somebody 1000 miles away telling me I cannot do something. It makes zero difference. Regardless of the distance, I still cannot do whatever thing it is they have made illegal.

If you want a case for why States do not need any more power, look no further than Illinois.

I see where you're coming from and I can see why you think I'm a rabid 10th amendment/state's rights honk.

It's not that I think your honk so much as I think a lot of people have been duped. The states were definitely stronger 200 years ago, but I mean go back 200 years and look at the things the states were doing with that power; Slavery. Jim Crow. State sponsored Religion. There's really no way of making it look good. Civil rights and personal liberty are the most important things in this country, and they come before anything else.

Unquestionably the Federal Government has proven more effective in protecting our rights than the states have, if only because we had that solid 100 year period where the greatest threat to personal liberty was the states and their ability to screw us when they couldn't get what they wanted from the Fed. That doesn't mean the Federal Government is perfect and makes no mistakes. It totally does, but we don't fix those problems by revisiting the failures we've already dealt with.

Governments at any level don't need rights. People need rights. Governments have powers, granted to them by the people.

and it wasn't until the New Deal Era that began the massive growth in the Federal government.

That's true, but the process of how it happened is important. It took awhile for the ramifications of the Reconstruction amendments to work their way through the courts, and in turn the laws. FDr also lead during a major national crisis, which the entity best suited to helping all the people who needed it was the Federal Government, and FDR had the luxury of a powerful and diverse national coalition that however fragile allowed him to make gutsy moves other presidents couldn't have made. He enjoyed a lot of flexibility in a very desperate time. History books in high schools unfortunately gloss over the importance of the Progressive Era. Social Security didn't pop out of then air for example. He did this in a time when poverty among the elderly was a rampant problem and was a political debate since the 19th century, turned into a humanitarian crisis by the Great Depression. Francis Townsend proposed the Townsend Plan first, and built the support base that eventually translated into support for Social Security.

 whembly wrote:
Well... at least he's not Carl Iconn...

But, yeah... Kudlow... :shudder:

Yeah, it seems strange that it's economics where Trump would finally settle for employing someone who actually works in that field. Although I guess when you go looking for a political hack to fill your admin, economics is one place where there's no shortage of political hacks who are also technically qualified

 Dreadwinter wrote:

If you want a case for why States do not need any more power, look no further than Illinois.

While Illinois is certainly a good example, this thread is chock full of sterling examples. Just look at the various North Carolina posts, ya know... the state with *THAT* bathroom bill.

 sebster wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You mean a matrioshka?

That's another name for them, yeah.

That's a common misconception actually.

Matrioshka = Nesting doll
Baboshka = Grandmother (real one of flesh and blood)

At least that's how it was explained to me by a Russian.

Of course, the classic Matrioshka is often painted as a woman, who could be a grandmother for all we know. Making it a Matrioshka depicting a Baboshka.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

If you want a case for why States do not need any more power, look no further than Illinois.

While Illinois is certainly a good example, this thread is chock full of sterling examples. Just look at the various North Carolina posts, ya know... the state with *THAT* bathroom bill.

Personally, I'd be pleased as punch if you guys stopped thinking of the issue as "States' Rights" and simply divvied up the responsibilities between State and Federal governments in a way that made sense in the modern era.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
While Illinois is certainly a good example, this thread is chock full of sterling examples. Just look at the various North Carolina posts, ya know... the state with *THAT* bathroom bill.

Exactly. What "states' rights" comes down to is some weird belief that being governed poorly by the state government is better than being governed poorly by the federal government. All the stuff NC is doing isn't magically better just because it's the state legislature doing it. Nor do taxes hurt your wallet less when the check is addressed to the state instead of the IRS. And so on, for everything people complain about with government of any kind. The whole idea of "states' rights" is an obsolete concept from 200+ years ago that doesn't make much sense in the modern world.

 Zywus wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You mean a matrioshka?

That's another name for them, yeah.

That's a common misconception actually.

Matrioshka = Nesting doll
Baboshka = Grandmother (real one of flesh and blood)

At least that's how it was explained to me by a Russian.

Of course, the classic Matrioshka is often painted as a woman, who could be a grandmother for all we know. Making it a Matrioshka depicting a Baboshka.

Yeh, Babushka is a granny, matryoshka is the doll.
The dolls could be referred to as Babushka dolls though, as the first layer tends to depict an old woman (matryoshka means matron, iirc)

http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt

Japan overtook China as biggest holder of US government debt in October


... how do people think this'll affect dealings in that area then ?

Slate compares Trump to Dylan Roof. Its getting so bad its comical now.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/what_gave_us_donald_trump_is_what_gave_us_dylann_roof.html

Except for that part of the article that says this:

"There’s no causal relationship between Trump and Roof, no tangible link between the two events."

And then it goes on to argue just that.

 Frazzled wrote:
And then it goes on to argue just that.

Then you either didn't actually read it or you don't understand it.

My those blinders must be pretty big.

Thursday, Roof was found guilty of hate crimes and other charges by a federal jury, and Donald Trump is president-elect of the United States. There’s no causal relationship between Trump and Roof, no tangible link between the two events. From a certain view, this means they’re unrelated. But that view is too narrow. Look at what radicalized Roof, at least in his own telling. Propaganda from white supremacist groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens; forums for white nationalists and anti-Semites; a narrative that told him he was oppressed, a “victim” of diversity in a nation overrun by “black crime.” At the church, say survivors, Roof exploded in grievance. “Y’all are raping our white women,” he reportedly said. “Y’all are taking over the world.”

Roof’s violence and Trump’s demagoguery flow from a shared swamp of resentment.

These ideas were once marginal. But in the past year, they’ve been pulled into the mainstream by Trump and his presidential campaign. Trump has broadcast racial propaganda and anti-Semitic messages; his children have shared racist memes and reached out to white supremacist personalities. His campaign chairman Stephen Bannon, now chief strategist to Trump, pushed these narratives as CEO of Breitbart, a website where “black crime” gets a vertical and whose most famous writers lead online mobs of neo-Nazis and white supremacists. In the world of Bannon and Breitbart, white America is under siege by dark-skinned people and their white liberal enablers. Likewise, Roof’s manifesto reveals a belief system in which white America needs defenders from black criminals and other racialized threats. By his own account, Roof was radicalized by the killing of Trayvon Martin and the trial of George Zimmerman. He believed Martin attacked Zimmerman in an instance of “black-on-white crime.” Here’s what Breitbart published on Martin’s death and the trial: a “breaking news” story claiming Martin had drugs “in his system,” a witness account claiming that Martin had attacked Zimmerman “MMA-style,” and an op-ed denouncing President Obama as a “race-baiter” for sympathizing with Martin. In the past year, the website has alleged that outlets such as YouTube censor videos of “black-on-white” crime.

 Frazzled wrote:
My those blinders must be pretty big.

Thursday, Roof was found guilty of hate crimes and other charges by a federal jury, and Donald Trump is president-elect of the United States. There’s no causal relationship between Trump and Roof, no tangible link between the two events. From a certain view, this means they’re unrelated. But that view is too narrow. Look at what radicalized Roof, at least in his own telling. Propaganda from white supremacist groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens; forums for white nationalists and anti-Semites; a narrative that told him he was oppressed, a “victim” of diversity in a nation overrun by “black crime.” At the church, say survivors, Roof exploded in grievance. “Y’all are raping our white women,” he reportedly said. “Y’all are taking over the world.”

Roof’s violence and Trump’s demagoguery flow from a shared swamp of resentment.

These ideas were once marginal. But in the past year, they’ve been pulled into the mainstream by Trump and his presidential campaign. Trump has broadcast racial propaganda and anti-Semitic messages; his children have shared racist memes and reached out to white supremacist personalities. His campaign chairman Stephen Bannon, now chief strategist to Trump, pushed these narratives as CEO of Breitbart, a website where “black crime” gets a vertical and whose most famous writers lead online mobs of neo-Nazis and white supremacists. In the world of Bannon and Breitbart, white America is under siege by dark-skinned people and their white liberal enablers. Likewise, Roof’s manifesto reveals a belief system in which white America needs defenders from black criminals and other racialized threats. By his own account, Roof was radicalized by the killing of Trayvon Martin and the trial of George Zimmerman. He believed Martin attacked Zimmerman in an instance of “black-on-white crime.” Here’s what Breitbart published on Martin’s death and the trial: a “breaking news” story claiming Martin had drugs “in his system,” a witness account claiming that Martin had attacked Zimmerman “MMA-style,” and an op-ed denouncing President Obama as a “race-baiter” for sympathizing with Martin. In the past year, the website has alleged that outlets such as YouTube censor videos of “black-on-white” crime.

A causal relationship between Roof and Trump would imply that one happened directly because of the other. Saying that both events stemmed from the same undercurrent of victimisation in society does not makee them causally linked but does make them related. And saying that both people were influenced by the same feelings of resentment is not a comparison between the two either. If I say that Malcolm X and MLK were both influenced by the oppression of blacks I am not making any comparison between the two, merely pointing out that their actions stemmed from the same underlying issue.

Its also stupid and an attempt to link Trump to a terrorist. Seriously, I don't vote for this guy, but the constant drumbeat of "RACIST! FASCIST!" is just off the charts now. You've finally gone to the edge of the bell curve on that.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... at least he's not Carl Iconn...

But, yeah... Kudlow... :shudder:

Yeah, it seems strange that it's economics where Trump would finally settle for employing someone who actually works in that field. Although I guess when you go looking for a political hack to fill your admin, economics is one place where there's no shortage of political hacks who are also technically qualified

Kudlow is just out of step. I remember vividly, in the almost immediate wake of the collapse in 2008/9 that he was doing his rounds on the financial news shows touting the need for "King Dollar" and the absolute mistake the Fed, et al were making with their dramatic easing moves with regards to rates and monetary policy. Meanwhile, Trichet was in Europe hiking in the not-so-distant aftermath of the collapse and does nothing but put Europe into an economic hole that it's still trying to ease and stimulate it's way out of as the U.S. begins normalizing rates. Unbelievable that this guy has any credible chops left, but he has ties to Reagan's administration...which it seems to me to be the model whose playbook they're going for economically...so sure, he's in.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its also stupid and an attempt to link Trump to a terrorist. Seriously, I don't vote for this guy, but the constant drumbeat of "RACIST! FASCIST!" is just off the charts now. You've finally gone to the edge of the bell curve on that.

Okay, well that pretty much confirms that you didn't understand the article. I guess we can move on now.