Priest craft

[anatess2]

23 minutes ago, Godless said:

My opinions about HRC are well-documented on this forum. And frankly, I'm tired of seeing "butbutbut Hillary" tossed around as a feeble defense of Trump. Her missteps don't excuse Trump's. I have no doubt that I would find plenty of things to criticize about President Hillary Clinton, but she's not our president, is she? Trump is, and both he and his supporters need to stop the broken record scapegoat attacks on someone who isn't even relevant anymore in our current political landscape. 

Of course you're going to sweep it away like it's just a feeble defense of Trump using an irrelevant political has-been.  You can't seem to grasp that this is an illustration on the illusion of Political Correctness putting lipstick over the seediness of American Politics so much so that it is just fine for a politician to insult a class of people as long as he says it within the rules of Political Correctness.  But, tell a person how you really feel - like wanting to punch him in the face - is not respectable because, oh, it is not politically correct.  Hillary is simply an easy example.  I'll give you another one - McCain choosing Sarah Palin for VP.

Edited February 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

On 2/11/2017 at 9:15 PM, Carborendum said:

To form an opinion on the 9th Circuit's decision, you might want to look at it first.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

One part, I outright disagree with.

Another part I partially disagree with.

Another part I believe is completely political, which I disagree with, but they have the legal right to do so.

Other parts, I have to admit, they made good arguments.

Given that, I'm not sure what the legal responsibility of the court would be.

No, this has nothing to do with priestcraft.

The major part of this that I found the most distressing was actually the claim made by the Trump team.  They claimed that the courts had no business reviewing his EO in the first place.  That is pretty shocking.

The way I read the 9th circuit opinion, they primarily felt that the case law requires a *very* high burden of proof to overturn an existing TRO by a lower court (a proposition I agree with, for procedural reasons); and they also felt the Feds hadn't met that burden.  As a matter of procedure . . . I'm not sure that they're wrong.  (And therein lies the rub.  My experience is that conservative/"Republican" jurists are willing to stick with procedure even when it leads to a result they personally dislike--e.g. Roberts on the Obamacare decision.  Progressive judges trumpet procedure when it helps their cause, but seem to be more willing to let it go hang when some "greater principle" is at stake.)  It's worth noting, though, that the lower court order was *terrible.*  It didn't engage with the relevant federal law *at all*; it just reviewed the elements required for a TRO, which any second-year law student could have told you, and then said "Trump loses".  The Administration should have won that round; and in other courts, it did win.

I do agree, to a certain extent, with the Trump administration's claim that border security judgments by the president are non-reviewable.  It is generally not the courts' role to demand classified intelligence information, second-guess Presidential risk assessments, and issue rulings decreeing the CIA, NSA, or White House itself to be in error and proclaiming that this fringe group or that war zone isn't really a strategic threat to American interests.  

That said, as Suzie points out Congress has applied certain nondiscrimination provisions to the President's discretion in matters of border security.  But again, you have to be careful with this--what happens if Al Quaida just says "we are a religious group, you can't bar us from your country just because we say we are members of Al Quaida"?  And of course, no court seemed to mind when the Obama administration discriminated *in favor* of Syrian refugees on basis of their nationality; or when it discriminated *against* Cuban ones in the waning days of his administration for the same reason.

The *real rule* that seems to be getting established here is that by executive fiat American presidents may unilaterally drag the country leftwards--but not rightwards.  If that's the game progressives want to play, then that (as Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds is won't to say) is how you get more Trump.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

We can talk all day about what you think Duterte should do.  The fact of the matter is, that doesn't change what he's doing.

 

What does that have to do with you and I being friends?

In any case, just because you don't gesticulate when you speak doesn't mean that someone who does is mocking somebody's disability.  This is the thing - if Clinton would have done any gesticulating (I can actually point to real things she did in lieu of gesticulating), the mainstream press would say, Oh how cute is that... even if she DID mock a disability.  But if Trump would do any gesticulating - even if the intent is clear - that wouldn't matter.  The mainstream press would say, he's a racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot.

And what is the effect of that?  Simple - you got Miley Cyrus, Meryl Streep, and all manner of people believe that Trump hates immigratns, hates muslims, hates women, hates disabled people, hates gays, hates blacks simply because the guy does not go through the filter of political handlers who will scrub his speech and manage his appearances to immunize against press manipulation... whereas the same people believe Hillary Clinton lying to the FBI is a right-wing conspiracy theory even with a video streaming right into their faces of Hillary Clinton lying over and over and over.

So, you might think you, as a careful rational observer, is immune to that slanted press, but you aren't.  Because, it requires a long history of political sophistry to be able to get wind of a news story and peel out the propaganda.

Now, here is the perfect example of how the Trump HATE is giving the USA to the hands of their enemies.  What do you think is happening with Flynn?  Do you think that's just a domestic affair without horrendous international consequences?

We can blame mainstream media all day long but HE is the one that gives them enough ammunition to talk for decades.

People talk about Trump mocking the disabled reporter, or attacking minorities etc...but for me the most disturbing comments (and I don't see many people talking about it) are the comments he made about his own daughters. When they asked him what he has in common with Ivanka and he answered "I would say sex but she is my daughter so..." and he laughed. Not the first time he "jokes" about sex and his daughters. I don't know any person in the right mind who would make a joke with something like that. Creepy!  

 

[anatess2]

49 minutes ago, Mike said:

No, it doesn't mean that, and I didn't say that it does. I said that in the video that FOX News contrived Donald Trump was shown gesticulating every time he mocked someone. In other words I (and you, too) may mock someone and gesticulate, or I (and you, too) may gesticulate and not be mocking someone when we talk. But FOX News' point was that when Donald Trump mocks someone he gesticulates, and the erroneous conclusion they wanted their viewers to draw was articulated well, by @Godless when he identified it as, "Trump didn't mock a disabled guy. He mocks everyone like that!" indicating that FOX News meant it to make Donald Trump look innocent.

Fox News leans right... but they suffered from identity crisis because Trump is hated by both left and right.

But no, Fox News did not mean to make Donald Trump look innocent.  Fox News was simply trying to point out that Donald Trump did not mock a person's disability to correct all the other news sources' narrative that Donald Trump hates disabled people.

 

49 minutes ago, Mike said:

But we aren't talking about Clinton or anybody else. This is all about and only about Donald Trump. The above sounds a lot like what kids do to shift unwanted attention away from themselves and toward somebody else.

But that's just silly.  We are not talking about Donald Trump alone.  We are talking about Donald Trump within the environment of American Politics.  You can't isolate him out of the entire political environment.

What kids do to win an argument is to pretend that there is no sandbox.

There's at least one benefit to Trump becoming President.  The left finally quit blaming Bush for everything.

 

49 minutes ago, Mike said:

Since this statement sounds very personally directed, I'm going to avoid retorting for the moment except to ask you if you believe that you and I are equally susceptible to sophistry and equally capable of evaluating slant and propaganda.

It's not personally directed.  It is directed at all Americans who has lived in this environment of media bias for at least 3 decades.  Trump is the first one to actually wage war against it instead of playing into it or trying to stay above it.

[Mike]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

... Fox News was simply trying to point out that Donald Trump did not mock a person's disability to correct all the other news sources' narrative that Donald Trump hates disabled people.

Hmmm, well for what it's worth I don't conclude that Donald Trump hates disabled people. But I do still believe that he mocked a disabled man, and I think it's what they call a distinction without a difference to say that it's not the same as mocking a man's disability. The more important thing to me is that the episode is just one straw in the haystack of his remarks and actions that caused me to doubt his qualifications to be an effective leader. 

[Guest Godless]

54 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Now, here is the perfect example of how the Trump HATE is giving the USA to the hands of their enemies.  What do you think is happening with Flynn?  Do you think that's just a domestic affair without horrendous international consequences?

This  is the most balanced article I could find on this issue. Even without the slant, it doesn't look good for Trump. Here's my takeaways:

- Whether or not the info leaked by the intelligence community was shared illegally or is subject to whistleblower protection is up for debate. What isn't up for debate is that Flynn lied about his involvement with the Russian government. Now the public deserves to know how much their president knew about his campaign's Russian dealings. 

- I'm not old enough to remember Watergate, but people who are old enough are starting to draw comparisons. I don't think we've reached a Nixon-level Constitutional crisis just yet, but I fear we may be headed in that direction. This can't stop with Flynn. We need to know who else broke the law and who knew about it. This isn't going to go away until the facts are brought forward.

- This could make or break the GOP. A significant number of Republicans voted for Trump reluctantly and with hope that Congress would hold him accountable for his actions as president. I speculated before the election that Trump could severely damage the GOP even if he won. If they don't find a spine fast, my theory could be proven correct in the midterms.

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, Suzie said:

We can blame mainstream media all day long but HE is the one that gives them enough ammunition to talk for decades.

People talk about Trump mocking the disabled reporter, or attacking minorities etc...but for me the most disturbing comments (and I don't see many people talking about it) are the comments he made about his own daughters. When they asked him what he has in common with Ivanka and he answered "I would say sex but she is my daughter so..." and he laughed. Not the first time he "jokes" about sex and his daughters. I don't know any person in the right mind who would make a joke with something like that. Creepy!  

 

I agree.  He is on the opposite spectrum of what we would consider polite company.  And that's the main reason he is a successful warrior in the war against the media.  He puts the media into such turmoil with his personal stuff that he can sail important issues right through them to the people.  A straitlaced Republican - even as straitlaced as Mitt Romney - easily gets politically assassinated by the press because people expect Romney to be polite so that just a tad bit whisper of impropriety - like a 47% comment - does him in.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Godless said:

This  is the most balanced article I could find on this issue. Even without the slant, it doesn't look good for Trump. Here's my takeaways:

- Whether or not the info leaked by the intelligence community was shared illegally or is subject to whistleblower protection is up for debate. What isn't up for debate is that Flynn lied about his involvement with the Russian government. Now the public deserves to know how much their president knew about his campaign's Russian dealings. 

- I'm not old enough to remember Watergate, but people who are old enough are starting to draw comparisons. I don't think we've reached a Nixon-level Constitutional crisis just yet, but I fear we may be headed in that direction. This can't stop with Flynn. We need to know who else broke the law and who knew about it. This isn't going to go away until the facts are brought forward.

- This could make or break the GOP. A significant number of Republicans voted for Trump reluctantly and with hope that Congress would hold him accountable for his actions as president. I speculated before the election that Trump could severely damage the GOP even if he won. If they don't find a spine fast, my theory could be proven correct in the midterms.

See here.  This is the problem.  Everybody is so hyperfocused on political assassination, worried and concerned - or happy about the survivability problems of the GOP that nobody even bothers to consider how a LEAKED INTELLIGENCE AGAINST RUSSIA is going to be handled BY RUSSIA.  Hello... Putin leads Russia.  The US just leaked a transcript of sensitive diplomatic conversation between an American intelligence operative and the Russian ambassador to the Press and YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE GOP???

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, Mike said:

Hmmm, well for what it's worth I don't conclude that Donald Trump hates disabled people. But I do still believe that he mocked a disabled man, and I think it's what they call a distinction without a difference to say that it's not the same as mocking a man's disability. The more important thing to me is that the episode is just one straw in the haystack of his remarks and actions that caused me to doubt his qualifications to be an effective leader. 

Nobody has an issue about Trump mocking a disabled man.  Equal opportunity mockery, that one.  The issue is the narrative that Trump is a bigot against disabled persons.

As far as qualifications to be an effective leader... mockery, of course, does not disqualify you from effective leadership.  Today's politics got formed by this deference to political correctness that became the political standard of the past few decades so much so that a deviation from such standards questions your qualifications.  It has become more important to be politically correct than to be correct.  Hamilton settling political disputes with a duel did not make Hamilton an ineffective leader, although it did make him a dead leader.  Nigel Farage's acerbic treatment of the EU did not make him an ineffective leader.  It won him Brexit.

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Of course you're going to sweep it away like it's just a feeble defense of Trump using an irrelevant political has-been.  You can't seem to grasp that this is an illustration on the illusion of Political Correctness putting lipstick over the seediness of American Politics so much so that it is just fine for a politician to insult a class of people as long as he says it within the rules of Political Correctness.  But, tell a person how you really feel - like wanting to punch him in the face - is not respectable because, oh, it is not politically correct.  Hillary is simply an easy example.  I'll give you another one - McCain choosing Sarah Palin for VP.

It's not about political correctness. It's about professionalism. Many people expect a certain level of professionalism from their leaders. It projects strength of character and the kind of level-headedness that is required to represent our country on a global platform. Hillary's "deplorables" statement was indefensible by any standard, but it was also a break in character from a politician who was foolishly trying to pander to a rabid liberal base. She stooped to Trump's level and was rightly scorned for it. On the whole, however, she had the more professional demeanor that people tend to expect from their leaders.

As for Palin, I personally believe that she single-handedly cost McCain the '08 election. Without her, I think he easily could have brought some swing voters (and even some moderate Democrats) over to his camp. Heck, I was seriously considering voting for him before Palin came into the picture. She was an absolute deal-breaker for me, my wife, and many others who were on the fence.

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I agree.  He is on the opposite spectrum of what we would consider polite company.  And that's the main reason he is a successful warrior in the war against the media.  He puts the media into such turmoil with his personal stuff that he can sail important issues right through them to the people.  A straitlaced Republican - even as straitlaced as Mitt Romney - easily gets politically assassinated by the press because people expect Romney to be polite so that just a tad bit whisper of impropriety - like a 47% comment - does him in.

Gaffes like Romney's are problematic because people like Romney are respectable. I'm not saying it's right to bury a politician based on a single ill-advised statement, but that's the nature of politics in this country. The fact that Trump is immune to character assassination tells me that he has no respectable character to assassinate. You treat that as a point of pride and strength, and that's why some of us are having a hard time making sense of your militant support of him.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Godless

[anatess2]

Just now, Godless said:

The fact that Trump is immune to character assassination tells me that he has,no respectable character to assassinate. You treat that as a point of pride and strength, and that's why some of us are having a hard time making sense of your militant support of him.

I don't treat that as a point of pride and strength.  I treat that as a canon in the war to right this ship called the USA.  Of course, if you don't agree that the USA is a broken vessel then you won't understand this sentiment.  But if you do agree that the USA is a broken vessel, you would understand that nobody - not even Ted Cruz - could have stepped in the White House and govern effectively to right this ship.  This obstructionism of the left is not going to go away if Ted Cruz became President.  The difference is - Ted Cruz wouldn't have been able to do what Trump just did the past 3 weeks.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

As for Palin, I personally believe that she single-handedly cost McCain the '08 election. Without her, I think he easily could have brought some swing voters (and even some moderate Democrats) over to his camp. Heck, I was seriously considering voting for him before Palin came into the picture. She was an absolute deal-breaker for me, my wife, and many others who were on the fence.

 

Wow.  Palin is the reason McCain lost?  That is silly.  McCain is the reason McCain lost in '08.  Because this is the thing - you didn't even realize how SEXIST McCain was for choosing a VP SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN.  But yeah, Trump is anti-woman because he doesn't talk like a politician.  You just proved my point.

Edited February 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Jojo Bags]

9 hours ago, Suzie said:

You didn't read the "whole story" because there is no "whole story". You asked for a reference about the known fact that  Elder James E. Faust was a Democrat and I provided you with the reference. He is certainly not the first or the last. Now, we can agree that the Democratic party has changed but we can also say the same about the Republican party.

It should be noted that according to Todd Taylor, a Democratic Party executive,  Elder Faust met in 1992 with members of  the Utah's Democratic Party to discuss how to keep political ties with the new administration. He continued keeping in touch with party members, as far as 1995 urging people to run in order to bring a  healthy balance of both parties. If these facts are indeed true and I have no reason to believe otherwise, it seems like an active Democrat to me.

Now, just because he was a Democrat  does not mean he agreed with all the ideologies of the Democratic party. It would be naive to think that. Just like Republicans, he might have agreed in certain issues and disagreed with others but does not change the fact that he was indeed a Democratic legislator.

It should also be noted that a BYU student asked Mitt Romney about the claim that Democrats can't be good Mormons. He stated that it is "baloney and ridiculous" and he also mentioned that LDS leaders are now or have been Democrats. Elder Marlin K. Jensen who was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy is also a Democrat. He gave an hour long interview back in the late 90's  stating that the Church's reputation as a one-party monolith is damaging in the long run and that any idea that it is impossible to be a Democrat and a good Mormon is wrongheaded and should be obliterated (feel free to search for the interview). I doubt very much that he agrees with your generalization that the Democratic party is "pure evil".

 

 

Have you ever looked closely at the Democratic platform?  I seriously doubt it.  I have checked it over carefully.  I compared it to the Communist Party, USA, and they are identical.  Communism is evil and anyone or anything that is identical to Communism is evil.   Pres. Benson and Elder Andersen both said that communism/socialism is Satan's pre-existent plan here on earth.  That's good enough for me.

[Blueskye2]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

See here.  This is the problem.  Everybody is so hyperfocused on political assassination, worried and concerned - or happy about the survivability problems of the GOP that nobody even bothers to consider how a LEAKED INTELLIGENCE AGAINST RUSSIA is going to be handled BY RUSSIA.  Hello... Putin leads Russia.  The US just leaked a transcript of sensitive diplomatic conversation between an American intelligence operative and the Russian ambassador to the Press and YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE GOP???

Personally, I think when spy craft is revealed to be involved, it is uncertain what is the objective, what is theatre and what is not, and what is the role that all on the stage are playing. We may know, in 50 years from now, when some retired spook writes a book.

Meanwhile, the public shows put on by both left and right players, over the last few days, has been entertaining. 

[Guest Godless]

11 hours ago, anatess2 said:

See here.  This is the problem.  Everybody is so hyperfocused on political assassination, worried and concerned - or happy about the survivability problems of the GOP that nobody even bothers to consider how a LEAKED INTELLIGENCE AGAINST RUSSIA is going to be handled BY RUSSIA.  Hello... Putin leads Russia.  The US just leaked a transcript of sensitive diplomatic conversation between an American intelligence operative and the Russian ambassador to the Press and YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE GOP???

I'm not worried about the GOP. They can rot in a hole for all I care (and they're digging themselves a pretty big one). I'm worried about how the integrity of our election may have been compromised by a hostile foreign government (And don't give me that "everyone does it" crap. Aren't we supposed to be the strongest democracy on Earth?). I'm worried about the kind of leverage Moscow may have on our president and/or people close to him. THAT is a national security issue. I'm not defending the way that this new information was released, but it's out there now and it's enough to raise some serious questions.

11 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I don't treat that as a point of pride and strength.  I treat that as a canon in the war to right this ship called the USA.  Of course, if you don't agree that the USA is a broken vessel then you won't understand this sentiment.  But if you do agree that the USA is a broken vessel, you would understand that nobody - not even Ted Cruz - could have stepped in the White House and govern effectively to right this ship.  This obstructionism of the left is not going to go away if Ted Cruz became President.  The difference is - Ted Cruz wouldn't have been able to do what Trump just did the past 3 weeks.

Yes, Trump has done a lot in the last 3 weeks, for better or worse. But do you really think his style of governance is sustainable in the long term? How long will it be before congressional Republicans realize that keeping their jobs will likely mean that they have to stand up to Trump every now and then? And if that doesn't happen, Trump could be looking at a very blue Congress in two years. How far will his "unconventional" leadership style get him then? Republicans are letting Trump do whatever he wants because he's working for their agenda. But ultimately, weren't they part of the "swamp" that Trump promised to drain? Make no mistake, the GOP will turn on him the moment he stops working for them.

11 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Wow.  Palin is the reason McCain lost?  That is silly.  McCain is the reason McCain lost in '08.  Because this is the thing - you didn't even realize how SEXIST McCain was for choosing a VP SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN.  But yeah, Trump is anti-woman because he doesn't talk like a politician.  You just proved my point.

And you just proved my point. When I said Palin cost him the election, part of that was on him for choosing her in the first place. And no, her gender wasn't the only reason he chose her. She represented the far-right ultra-conservative demographic (later called the Tea Party) that McCain, for some reason, felt the need to pander to. I think most of those people would have voted for him anyway, even if it was a bit reluctantly. His focus should have been to his left, not his right. Moderate Democrats have respected him for a long time, and he could have brought some of them over from the Obama camp if he hadn't pandered to the extreme right.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Godless

[anatess2]

8 hours ago, Godless said:

I'm not worried about the GOP. They can rot in a hole for all I care (and they're digging themselves a pretty big one). I'm worried about how the integrity of our election may have been compromised by a hostile foreign government (And don't give me that "everyone does it" crap. Aren't we supposed to be the strongest democracy on Earth?). I'm worried about the kind of leverage Moscow may have on our president and/or people close to him. THAT is a national security issue. I'm not defending the way that this new information was released, but it's out there now and it's enough to raise some serious questions.

This is what you're missing:

The Russians, the Chinese, the Saudis have been doing this to the USA for as long as they have been on the other side of US foreign policy.  It is funny that you are only worried about it now... why?  Because, this is the only time that the MEDIA has made Russia the bad guys.  Before that, Russia can do no wrong.

So, let's see, Obama refused to respond when Russia invaded Crimea just 2 years ago.  Obama denied that Russia is our biggest geopolitical foe just 4 years ago.  Obama/Hillary Clinton gave Russia a reset button just 7 years ago not too long after the Russo-Georgia war.  The Democrat Party was in bed with the Russians throughout the Cold War calling Reagan all shades of ignorant for demonizing Russia and actively undermining Reagan's show of strength in the Cold War.

And now you are worried about Russia because... gasp... Trump called Putin a great leader of his people?

What kind of leverage do you think Moscow have with the US establishment after all their kiss-butting to Russia all this time?  Yet you weren't worried about that then!

And it is hilarious to me that you put up the US as this incorruptible bastion of democracy when it wasn't too long ago that the US meddled in Brexit, meddled in the election of Netanyahu, flew Hornets over the Malacanang Palace in the middle of a coup d'etat.

 

8 hours ago, Godless said:

Yes, Trump has done a lot in the last 3 weeks, for better or worse. But do you really think his style of governance is sustainable in the long term? How long will it be before congressional Republicans realize that keeping their jobs will likely mean that they have to stand up to Trump every now and then? And if that doesn't happen, Trump could be looking at a very blue Congress in two years. How far will his "unconventional" leadership style get him then? Republicans are letting Trump do whatever he wants because he's working for their agenda. But ultimately, weren't they part of the "swamp" that Trump promised to drain? Make no mistake, the GOP will turn on him the moment he stops working for them.

They're turning on him now.  Everybody is out to get him - Dems and Repubs alike.  Evan McMullin just came out of the woodwork to stir the pot again.  So, your response is... if Trump would have been nicer there's a better chance of draining the swamp.  Really?  Trump has proved that he can triumph even with everybody - left, right, media, celebrities, Mormons - are out to get him.

In my opinion, his non-ideological leadership style with his extreme rejection of failure is the only style that can drain that swamp.

And if the Democrats continue with this obstructionist and protesting style... they're going to lose in 2 years too.

 

8 hours ago, Godless said:

And you just proved my point. When I said Palin cost him the election, part of that was on him for choosing her in the first place. And no, her gender wasn't the only reason he chose her. She represented the far-right ultra-conservative demographic (later called the Tea Party) that McCain, for some reason, felt the need to pander to. I think most of those people would have voted for him anyway, even if it was a bit reluctantly. His focus should have been to his left, not his right. Moderate Democrats have respected him for a long time, and he could have brought some of them over from the Obama camp if he hadn't pandered to the extreme right.

And you completely missed the point.  McCain is the poster child of political corruption who serves himself and not the people.  He brings all tricks into the political bloodsport - identity politics, smear campaigns, lies and obfuscations, etc.  He is what you accuse Trump of being.  Yet he doesn't get that kind of hate because he talks the talk.

And no.  He did not pick Palin because she's a Tea Partier.  Proof - if Palin was not a Tea Partier, she would still be picked.  If she was not a woman, she wouldn't be picked.  FACT.

Edited February 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest Godless]

50 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is what you're missing:

The Russians, the Chinese, the Saudis have been doing this to the USA for as long as they have been on the other side of US foreign policy.  It is funny that you are only worried about it now... why?  Because, this is the only time that the MEDIA has made Russia the bad guys.  Before that, Russia can do no wrong.

So, let's see, Obama refused to respond when Russia invaded Crimea just 2 years ago.  Obama denied that Russia is our biggest geopolitical foe just 4 years ago.  Obama/Hillary Clinton gave Russia a reset button just 7 years ago not too long after the Russo-Georgia war.  The Democrat Party was in bed with the Russians throughout the Cold War calling Reagan all shades of ignorant for demonizing Russia and actively undermining Reagan's show of strength in the Cold War.

And now you are worried about Russia because... gasp... Trump called Putin a great leader of his people?

What kind of leverage do you think Moscow have with the US establishment after all their kiss-butting to Russia all this time?  Yet you weren't worried about that then!

Russia has concerned me for quite some time. Having seen first-hand what American interventionism can do, I can't say that I blame Obama for staying away from the Crimea situation. That doesn't mean I agree with our overall treatment of Russia during the last 8 years. I wish we had gotten more tough with Putin before he invaded Crimea and leveled Syrian cities. Obama seemed to ignore Putin. I think that was a mistake. Trump's campaign may have had illegal interactions with the Russian government prior to the election. That's more than a mistake. If they broke the law, they need to be held accountable, period. And if Trump's treatment of Hillary* is any indication, I'd say he agrees with me. Funny how he's so much more reluctant to launch investigations when its his own people under the microscope. 

*And for the record, I have never denied that she broke the law or that she shouldn't have been investigated. The fact that I still voted for her is a testament to my dislike and distrust of Trump more than anything else. Make no mistake, I did not like Hillary. She could have won the election and been impeached immediately afterward for her crimes and I would have been 100% okay with that, because Trump wouldn't be in the White House.

Quote

And it is hilarious to me that you put up the US as this incorruptible bastion of democracy when it wasn't too long ago that the US meddled in Brexit, meddled in the election of Netanyahu, flew Hornets over the Malacanang Palace in the middle of a coup d'etat.

I was referring to our own democratic system, not our meddling in foreign democracies, which I do not approve of btw. It's not okay when we intervene with foreign elections, and it's not okay when foreign entities, especially hostile ones like Russia, intervene in our own elections. How am I supposed to believe that Trump will be tough on Putin when he arguably won the election because of him? How are you unable to see how problematic it is that our president may have had illegal interactions with a hostile nation prior to becoming president? 

Quote

 

They're turning on him now.  Everybody is out to get him - Dems and Repubs alike.  Evan McMullin just came out of the woodwork to stir the pot again.  So, your response is... if Trump would have been nicer there's a better chance of draining the swamp.  Really?  Trump has proved that he can triumph even with everybody - left, right, media, celebrities, Mormons - are out to get him.

He won an election in spite of the opposition. That's a lot different from actually running the government now that he's actually won. He's come out swinging so far, but there will come a time when he will need cooperation from Congress (A.K.A. the Swamp Monsters) to advance his agenda. That's the nature of our government. The system is built so that no one person can call all the shots. We're still in that "honeymoon" period that all presidents get when they use EOs to set up the framework for their executive policies while Congress is bogged down in confirmation hearings. We have yet to see how well Trump and Congress will work together once the dust settles from the first 100 days. Ultimately, I maintain hope that our system of checks and balances will prevail. 

Quote

And if the Democrats continue with this obstructionist and protesting style... they're going to lose in 2 years too.

Tell that to the Tea Party.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Godless

[Just_A_Guy]

9 hours ago, Godless said:

And you just proved my point. When I said Palin cost him the election, part of that was on him for choosing her in the first place. And no, her gender wasn't the only reason he chose her. She represented the far-right ultra-conservative demographic (later called the Tea Party) that McCain, for some reason, felt the need to pander to. I think most of those people would have voted for him anyway, even if it was a bit reluctantly. His focus should have been to his left, not his right. Moderate Democrats have respected him for a long time, and he could have brought some of them over from the Obama camp if he hadn't pandered to the extreme right.

FWIW, the Palin pick very nearly got me to vote for McCain; but I ultimately figured I couldn't stomach his moral bankruptcy and I voted libertarian that year. (In hindsight, given the train wreck her personal life seems to have become, I don't think too highly of Palin; but I did and still do think that the bulk of the media treatment she got in 2008 was colossally unfair.)

I disagree that McCain ever had the power to draw a significant following from the center-left so long as he was running with an "R" next to his name against a nationally-known Democrat candidate.  McCain's status as the media's fair-haired Republican always had an expiration date; the opinion-makers in the media were always going to break strongly for the Democratic nominee (especially the first minority or first female Democratic nominee) in the end, regardless of who the Republicans nominated or who the running mate was.  We saw another manifestation of the same phenomenon happen in California:  the media adored Arnold, until suddenly he got into gubernatorial politics as a Republican, and then the long knives came out.   Everyone loves a maverick Republican--as long as he doesn't inhibit a Democrat's rise to power.

I don't think 2008 was winnable for the Republicans; and I still think that Palin was probably a net positive for the ticket by firing up members of the base who didn't particularly care for McCain.

[Guest Godless]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

FWIW, the Palin pick very nearly got me to vote for McCain; but I ultimately figured I couldn't stomach his moral bankruptcy and I voted libertarian that year. (In hindsight, given the train wreck her personal life seems to have become, I don't think too highly of Palin; but I did and still do think that the bulk of the media treatment she got in 2008 was colossally unfair.)

I disagree that McCain ever had the power to draw a significant following from the center-left so long as he was running with an "R" next to his name against a nationally-known Democrat candidate.  McCain's status as the media's fair-haired Republican always had an expiration date; the opinion-makers in the media were always going to break strongly for the Democratic nominee (especially the first minority or first female Democratic nominee) in the end, regardless of who the Republicans nominated or who the running mate was.  We saw another manifestation of the same phenomenon happen in California:  the media adored Arnold, until suddenly he got into gubernatorial politics as a Republican, and then the long knives came out.   Everyone loves a maverick Republican--as long as he doesn't inhibit a Democrat's rise to power.

I don't think 2008 was winnable for the Republicans; and I still think that Palin was probably a net positive for the ticket by firing up members of the base who didn't particularly care for McCain.

That's a fair explanation. I can't definitively say that a different running mate would have changed my vote, but it certainly would have helped. As far as Republicans go, I really do like and respect McCain for the most part (possibly for the same reasons that you dislike him). You're right though, a minority Democrat running to replace Bush was probably a fight that the Republicans were always bound to lose no matter who they put out there.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

That's a fair explanation. I can't definitively say that a different running mate would have changed my vote, but it certainly would have helped. As far as Republicans go, I really do like and respect McCain for the most part (possibly for the same reasons that you dislike him). You're right though, a minority Democrat running to replace Bush was probably a fight that the Republicans were always bound to lose no matter who they put out there.

Do you respect Joe Manchin for the same reasons you respect McCain? Just curious. 

I've noticed that moderate republicans are "brave" and "independent" while poor Joe Manchin doesn't get the same respect .

[yjacket]

On 2/16/2017 at 5:14 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't think 2008 was winnable for the Republicans; and I still think that Palin was probably a net positive for the ticket by firing up members of the base who didn't particularly care for McCain.

'08 wasn't winnable on platform the R's wanted to run.  McCain is the ultimate neo-con; I don't think he's ever seen a conflict he hasn't wanted to get involved in and then bomb the crud out of the people.

The Rs in '08 completely misread the voters-they pushed McCain (establishment neo-con) at a time when the country was war-weary.  Obama won, not b/c he was minority, but b/c the country wanted out of war. Had the Rs listened to Ron Paul in '08, they would have won.  They didn't need to incorporate everything Paul said, but they needed to wise-up to what was happening and they didn't.  They did everything in their power to kick-out, ostracize, belittle, etc. Paul.  They didn't listen in '08, nor in '12 and in '16 they (the R establishment) finally got their butts handed to them.

What I find hilarious is the exact same people who told me I wasn't "really" a Republican, or had such anger towards me in '08 for not towing the party line are the same ones who decided they were "neverTrumpers" and that it was their job to resist Trump. Their hypocrisy was stunning. The R establishment got what was coming to them, good and hard. 

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, we all know that the sum total of American politics is to achieve vindication for perceived slights in the past; and revenge for ourselves upon those we fancy to be our enemies.   I rather suspect that Republicans--establishment or not--haven't begun to see all the fallout that this new brand of American politics will yield; but I suppose time will tell.

Otherwise:  I'm inclined to agree with you both that McCain has a history of spitting in conservatism's eye generally; and that Paul got shabby treatment.  On the other hand the sort of wholesale abandonment of Iraq that Paul advocated, that Bush let himself be bound to, and that Obama ultimately executed was (IMHO) both strategically unwise and morally wrong; even if it was what our contemptably capricious electorate wanted.

To some degree, this probably harks back to yours and my fundamental disagreement about how much evil we can/should brook within our ranks for the sake of winning elections; with you taking (as I understand it) more of a realpolitik  sort of view.

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, we all know that the sum total of American politics is to achieve vindication for perceived slights in the past; and revenge for ourselves upon those we fancy to be our enemies.   I rather suspect that Republicans--establishment or not--haven't begun to see all the fallout that this new brand of American politics will yield; but I suppose time will tell.

Otherwise:  I'm inclined to agree with you both that McCain has a history of spitting in conservatism's eye generally; and that Paul got shabby treatment.  On the other hand the sort of wholesale abandonment of Iraq that Paul advocated, that Bush let himself be bound to, and that Obama ultimately executed was (IMHO) both strategically unwise and morally wrong; even if it was what our contemptably capricious electorate wanted.

To some degree, this probably harks back to yours and my fundamental disagreement about how much evil we can/should brook within our ranks for the sake of winning elections; with you taking (as I understand it) more of a realpolitik  sort of view.

Well, Obama never really pulled out of Iraq (or the middle east), like Paul and I wanted to.  It will be 17 years after 9/11 . . 17 flipping years, 15 years being in Iraq?? My goodness, sometimes you've just got to realize the reality of the situation.  If you can't "win" in that period of time-you ain't never gonna win.

Yes we should just abandon the middle east-let them figure it out-and prevent them from coming here.  But anyways, I don't think we have a fundamental disagreement about how much evil we should allow in . . .politics is war without violence.  There are moral ways to fight it and immoral ways to fight it and I'm for moral ways to fight for it-but I also understand that most people don't care about morality in politics-they just care about power and obtaining it.

One of the reason's why I actually like Trump is b/c I became very aware and astute to all the really nasty, dirty, immoral, tricks the establishment played on Paul.  It was blatantly obvious-they'd leave him out of a poll even though he was in 3rd place (they'd go 1,2,4,5,6,etc).  Quite frankly, I love that Trump is skewering the establishment.  And as a plus, I actually agree from a libertarian perspective with a lot of his ideas (not all-but they are almost all more libertarian than establishment R/D).

And it's a matter of perspective, if one see both establishment R/D as the same (as I do), then having a Trump in office is awesome.

Edited February 20, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

Well, Obama never really pulled out of Iraq (or the middle east), like Paul and I wanted to.

To me the most annoying thing that the left does is give Obama a free pass on this. 

[Just_A_Guy]

On 2/19/2017 at 5:27 PM, yjacket said:

Well, Obama never really pulled out of Iraq (or the middle east), like Paul and I wanted to.  It will be 17 years after 9/11 . . 17 flipping years, 15 years being in Iraq?? My goodness, sometimes you've just got to realize the reality of the situation.  If you can't "win" in that period of time-you ain't never gonna win.

No one here is making the argument that America should re-engage with significant quantities of ground troops in 2017.  My point was simply that as of 2008, running out on the Iraqis was the wrong thing to do.  So we aren't talking about 15-17 years; we are talking about 5-7 years.

In the month of October 2008 there were 14 American fatalities in Iraq.  By 2010 the average was down to five per month.  Even if those figures didn't continue to drop:  If we truly believe that Islamic terror is the threat to the American homeland that President Trump says it is; then the prospect of maintaining a terrorist honeypot in perpetuity on the other side of the world at the cost of a few dozen US combatant lives per annum bears serious consideration--and in hindsight the prospect of preventing the rise of ISIS and concomitant butchery and refugee crisis; along with the moral dignity of being able to keep our promises to our friends, would rather sweeten the deal.

That said; the deed having been done, I agree that the best course of action now is to stay out and look to our own borders and internal security as best we (constitutionally) can.  Maybe at some point, if Iraq continues to disintegrate, recognize an independent Kurdish state in Iraq and see if they're scrappy enough to hold onto it like the Israelis did; but no military involvement.