Author Topic: President Trump  (Read 432323 times)

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #600 on: December 22, 2015, 10:10:02 AM »
For DMG and CD, ... packed to the rafters.......


Impressive but not quite Grant Park, 2008.  Crowds can and often do get it wrong.


Unfair comparison here, but crowd enthusiasm is not always the best measure of good policies:


" Crowds can and often do get it wrong."

No they don't.

They represent their beliefs. There is nothing wrong with being ultranationalistic, unless of course, your views don't fit that of the country you're living in.

The US right now is seeking the course it will take. There are a lot of compromising, apologetic people, that want to give the country away for their own self interests and sway more power their way, or for their own skewed sense of justice, "white privilege" being chief amongst these, as though White Christians or any Christians for that matter, don't deserve a voice, much less their own country. You see it happening all across Europe, people thinking that others have a right to just immigrate any place they want, and then attempt to change it to the same cesspool they just left.

Trump is right, depending upon your view, which brings up an interesting question which I have asked here before and remains unanswered - "Why not divide the States into zones that represent the views of Liberals, Conservatives, and Independents?"

It's either that, or continue to have people living together that have no interest in doing so, and see where that goes.

I for one, like Trump, inasmuch, as he has the gonads to remove filters and say what is on several people's minds.

The Founding Fathers were right.... the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed with blood from time to time. Saying that is not politically correct and borders on being illegal these days.... which indicative of the entire problem.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18290
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #601 on: December 22, 2015, 10:36:03 AM »
A much bigger crowd got Obama all wrong in 2008.  (Doesn't mean Trump is wrong.)

We were going to heal the earth, make peace between the races and the religions, our enemies would see our goodness and our young people would see amazing opportunities.  We were going to control guns, raise wages, lower the cost of healthcare.  They were all wrong.  Those policies had the opposite effect.

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #602 on: December 22, 2015, 10:44:03 AM »
A much bigger crowd got Obama all wrong in 2008.  (Doesn't mean Trump is wrong.)

We were going to heal the earth, make peace between the races and the religions, our enemies would see our goodness and our young people would see amazing opportunities.  We were going to control guns, raise wages, lower the cost of healthcare.  They were all wrong.  Those policies had the opposite effect.

You got me. I was mistaken.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18290
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #603 on: December 23, 2015, 07:57:56 AM »
One commentator observed last week, Trump's supporters are the angriest about the direction of the country, rightfully so, really they've had it with both parties.  PP, agree?  As an aside, that was Perot's strength too, pointing out what was wrong with both sides.

Secondly this commentator questioned, do we make our best decisions when we're angry?  No , we don't.

Expressing support for Trump in the year before the election is a great way of telling both parties how sick and tired you are about how things are going in Washington.

Actually picking someone who can win when you vote in your caucus or primary is a way of doing something about it.

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #604 on: December 23, 2015, 09:12:50 AM »
One commentator observed last week, Trump's supporters are the angriest about the direction of the country, rightfully so, really they've had it with both parties.  PP, agree?  As an aside, that was Perot's strength too, pointing out what was wrong with both sides.

Secondly this commentator questioned, do we make our best decisions when we're angry?  No , we don't.

Expressing support for Trump in the year before the election is a great way of telling both parties how sick and tired you are about how things are going in Washington.

Actually picking someone who can win when you vote in your caucus or primary is a way of doing something about it.

Trump is the right person for the job. The rest are just more of the same. The idea that Caucasians have to surrender their countries in Europe, Britian, the States...because of White "privilege" and because those terrible Caucasians conquered everyone else, when every other people and country on earth, has done the same... it's old. It needs to stop....NOW. Affirmative action, loans for women and "minorities, that conversely, we Whites get to pay for, but not enjoy, in our home countries. No thank you....they can get stuffed...and what's more, is that any other person in any country, as long as they were not White, could say any of the aforementioned, and no one would even blink.

F em.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #605 on: December 23, 2015, 10:17:58 AM »
Saying  "F  'em" feels good, until we see the end of America with the election of the Empress Dowager of Chappaqua.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #606 on: December 23, 2015, 10:20:01 AM »
DMG,

Hell yes we are angry and have had it with the party because the party only represents themselves and the elites. The GOPe has left the middle class behind to fend for themselves.

Why does anyone think that voting for the same old professional politicians would make any difference this time? Oh, Cruz and Rubio are different. Yeah right.

- First time Senators who decide to run for the Presidency after their first couple of years in office, just like O'Bummer did.

- Each are flip flopping on issues as needed to try and hide previous votes that the base would not support.

- Both are weak on immigration reform, and with Cruz, who the hell knows where he really stands.

- Both went for TPA which gave the Fast Track authority and also changed voting requirements that later allowed TPP to pass. (This also allowed for Cruz to claim that he was not for it later............after the damage was done and there could be no accountability.

- Each beholden to Super Pacs consisting of the elitists buying the candidates.

- Cruz whose wife is a permanent fixture with Goldman Sachs,, Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations.

And we are supposed to believe that this time it is different?

Just watch what happens if Trump is taken out of the race and Cruz becomes the front runner. He is going to be taken out by both the GOPe and the Dems, leading to Rubio who is Jeb lite.  He will melt and submit to his masters just like all the others.

This is a war for the soul of the party. Either way, whatever happens, the GOPe is finished as it currently is, and that will be a well deserved end.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #607 on: December 23, 2015, 10:28:42 AM »
The end of America?  Oh yeah, here we go again with that argument. 

Why would it be the end? Oh right, because the GOPe would be afraid to challenge her, like they are afraid to challenge O'bummer. Instead, the GOP comes up with tripe like "this is not the hill to die on", or "we must pick battles that we can win".  This was how Vietnam was fought and look what happened. If the same strategies had been applied in WW2, Europe would be speaking German, the Far East Japanese, and Russia would control still most of East Asia.

If the GOP had any scholonges, we would not be where we are now, and America could survive a Hillary presidency. But they have been emasculated on the alter of Political Correctness and fear of losing their power and influence that they have now.
PPulatie

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #608 on: December 23, 2015, 11:52:40 AM »
Saying  "F  'em" feels good, until we see the end of America with the election of the Empress Dowager of Chappaqua.

I have made it my business to live amongst people that want to cut off my head. I'm ok with it.

The "end" isn't really then "end." Without exception, it is always the beginning of something new.

My take on the US?

I came from a broken home, exposed to drugs early, got into trouble for it, left home at 16, had to fend for myself....wanted to serve my country, almost aced the ASVAB, have stayed out of trouble for almost three decades now, speak several languages, hunt drug cartels honorably....only to be told by people like GM and others that I'm neither good enough to die for my country nor have the right to own firearms to protect my own home (bearing in mind that I actually survived a home invasion robbery in October of 2002 or thereabouts). There is an irony about not having firearms that I may or may not have had just previously, at that point that precluded me from being able to shoot the people that only didn't return and kill us because there was a five year old boy present. That's a fact.

Nope. Not interested in seeing people like that flourish. Let it fall. I've seen what my investment in being good has bought me there.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 12:00:27 PM by DDF »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #609 on: December 23, 2015, 12:08:02 PM »
By "End of America" I mean the American Creed.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #610 on: December 23, 2015, 12:18:23 PM »
DDF,

My story........

Born in Oklahoma. Moved to San Bernardino in 1963. Mother died when I was 14, and Dad worked and had no time for me so I fended at home for myself. By 16, never saw my data because he had taken up and moved in with a woman and her 3 children. So I was completely on my own at that point.

After high school, went to work for a bank as a teller, but it was a job where there was little future. Had no motivation or time for college, so at 23, joined the Air Force. While in, I recognized that I could go to college and did so, graduating from Troy State and then going to LSU Shreveport. After graduation, held positions in a number of different administrative positions in hospitals and start up companies, but never a real future. Made several people wealthy in the start ups, but I never got anywhere. Finally went on my own, and since then have gotten to a good point professionally and monetarily, but three times, the government (both state and federal) has instituted new regulations and statutes that caused me to have to "re-invent" what I do. Each time, it damned near bankrupted me. Now I am at it again from a different direction that may finally give me what I want.

I have never lost my "working class" roots. I certainly identify with the working class more than with anyone else. I find the working class honest, trustworthy, and with more common sense than those who are over educated. I would much rather have a beer with them than with wine guzzling elitists.

I am becoming more and more a "pragmatic" conservative, call me moderate, recognizing that societal and cultural changes make purity conservatism a dinosaur that can never but achieved. For me, it is supporting a candidate that focuses upon the 2 or 3 most important issues that I care about, Security, Illegal Immigration, and Economic/Tax issues. Everything else is immaterial because the division of the country will not allow other change to occur.

You are right that the end is not the end, but is a new beginning. That is what the country is facing and what the politicians have wrought makes it likely that the end/beginning will begin soon. And it cannot be postponed. When it begins, we will need a pragmatic leader who can face the challenges and do what is needed, and not stick to old dogmatic beliefs.

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #611 on: December 23, 2015, 12:18:53 PM »
How do you define the American Creed?
PPulatie

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #612 on: December 23, 2015, 12:49:43 PM »
How do you define the American Creed?

Loved reading your story. I am currently starting my own aerospace company here, because I think it's bs that we have to buy attack choppers from Russia. Was at base and some of my brothers had just gotten back from Novosibirsk.

American Creed?

Freedom more than anything, to Americans, of all colors, so long as they really are Americans and not anchor babies or people that just decided to walk on in and help themselves to our Cheerios. Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail, freedom to pull themselves up from their own bootstraps as my grandfather told me, but notably absent, not allowing others to make excuses for their failures. No "ruling class," and though I don't drink, at all, ever, I too, would much rather have a beer than sip wine. I grew up in Iowa, on a pig farm, as did my brother who is also one of the tribe.

We detassled corn and shoveled a lot of pig dung, and came out of the fields at the end of a long day, with all of the cuts all over our arms, to come home in a few years to a country that isn't even ours and if someone says something, they cry "racism and bigotry."

I won't miss the double standards and ruling class, Hollywood elitists, or any of that crap.

Freedom? Wild west.

Sorry about the bankruptcy, but at least you don't make excuses waiting for someone to rescue you from your plight. lol..... Liberals these days... I have no doubt you will be successful and already are in some ways. I know I am. I have guarded the president in the country I live in and the Dalai Lama. I'm pretty proud of that.

Trump.... at least he is saying what is on people's minds. I'm all for it, even and especially if it opens up uncomfortable debate and challenges the status quo.

Cheers and Merry Christmas.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 12:52:39 PM by DDF »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18290
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #613 on: December 23, 2015, 12:53:43 PM »
quote author=ppulatie
My story........

Thank you for posting that, great story.  I didn't pick up on the southern accent in your writing.    :wink:

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #614 on: December 23, 2015, 01:35:57 PM »
Thanks. And the accent is gone. But about Oklahoma, don't let me get started on the outhouse and having to go out there at night with a flashlight. Talk about frightening when you are 5 years old.

What I did not say is that though I had a roof over my head when I was 16 to 17, I frequently did not have food to eat and I had few clothes. Most noticed that I would wear clothes until they were about ready to shred. I was lucky that one family took interest in me during that time. They would frequently prepare more than enough food and bring some to me, or else I would have really starved. Can't tell you how many nights a week I had bologna sandwiches. Only when I got a job washing dishes in a greasy spoon did I finally have food that I could count on daily. (They let me eat breakfast and lunch.)

Where I live now is a solid middle class neighborhood. It's a mixture of white and hispanic, working and retired, with a few Section 8's included. I can say with absolute certainty that over half worry about their future and their jobs. Many worry about having a job the next week and are making a decision of which bills to pay weekly so that they can have food on the table. Moreover, they worry what type of country that their kids and grandkids are set to inherit. They fear, an rightly so, that it will be a future where their kids will not be as well off as they are. I have the same worries for my grandkids.

This is why I am so sympathetic to the middle class and why I understand them so well. I have been there and lived the lives that so many have at one time or another.  And I can be just like them again with another stroke of a government pen.

Trump has hit upon the concerns of this demographic that others cannot see, probably due to a lack of shared experience. That is why they are going to him in droves.  If you look at Trump rallies, it is not just the numbers of people, but it is the make up of the crown. Though mostly white, there are significant numbers of blacks and hispanics. And based upon their clothing and appearance, it is not just middle class but also a significant portion would appear to be upper middle class. Ages are across the board.

Trump has resonated with the people like no one since Reagan or "spit" O'Bama. And as people pay attention, that is why his support is growing.

For the record, I never watched the Apprentice or his other shows. I never paid attention to him, read the book or anything. But it was watching one of his rallies on tv that I realized he was speaking to me.

DDF,

You and I have lived different lives and circumstances, but we do have a shared experience in many ways. Good luck with building your own company. Hard work and long hours, but well worth it. Maybe we can both leave a legacy on the world with our efforts.

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #615 on: December 23, 2015, 03:14:17 PM »
American Creed= Free minds, free markets, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of contract, right of self-defense (hence guns and knives, etc) property rights, privacy, all connected with responsibility for the consequences of one's action.  All this from our Creator, not the State nor majority vote.

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #616 on: December 23, 2015, 03:23:51 PM »
American Creed= Free minds, free markets, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of contract, right of self-defense (hence guns and knives, etc) property rights, privacy, all connected with responsibility for the consequences of one's action.  All this from our Creator, not the State nor majority vote.

Responsibility of one's actions...I agree with that. I don't agree with one man telling another man, once he's a law abiding citizen, that he still suffers from a lack of rights. I'll never buy into that, because the 2nd part of what you said is absolutely true....from ONE'S CREATOR....not a man or group of men.

PPULTIE.... cheers.... I've had businesses before and true....many, many hours. Hopefully our future endeavors will bear fruit.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18290
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #617 on: December 24, 2015, 07:16:28 AM »
American Creed= Free minds, free markets, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of contract, right of self-defense (hence guns and knives, etc) property rights, privacy, all connected with responsibility for the consequences of one's action.  All this from our Creator, not the State nor majority vote.

Simple and brilliant.  Not too many writers since the Founders ever stop and express this so clearly.

I would like to share this with my daughter pondering how to approach the issues as she comes out of a confusion called college.  Share this with Bigdog too.  He runs into a few young people.  And Conrad. 

Someone please tell the Syrian refugees and the people crossing our border, America isn't just a place on the map, it is a creed we share.

Creed =  a set of beliefs that guide one's actions.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18290
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #618 on: December 24, 2015, 07:35:29 AM »
I wish we could get George Will to tell us how he really thinks about Donald Trump instead of sugar coating all the time...

Will Donald Trump End the GOP’s Role as America’s Conservative Party?

GEORGE WILL

If you look beyond Donald Trump’s comprehensive unpleasantness — is there a disagreeable human trait he does not have? — you might see this: He is a fundamentally sad figure. His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration. His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded. Now, panting with a puppy’s insatiable eagerness to be petted, Trump has reveled in the approval of Vladimir Putin, murderer and war criminal.

Putin slyly stirred America’s politics by saying Trump is “very talented,” adding that he welcomed Trump’s promise of “closer, deeper relations,” whatever that might mean, with Russia. Trump announced himself flattered to be “so nicely complimented” by a “highly respected” man: “When people call you brilliant, it’s always good.” When MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Putin “kills journalists and political opponents and invades countries,” Trump replied that “at least he’s a leader.” Besides, Trump breezily asserted, “I think our country does plenty of killing also.” Two days later, Trump, who rarely feigns judiciousness, said: “It has not been proven that he’s killed reporters.”

Perhaps the 56 journalists murdered were coincidental victims of amazingly random violence that the former KGB operative’s police state is powerless to stop. It has, however, been “proven,” perhaps even to Trump’s exacting standards, that Putin has dismembered Ukraine. (Counts one and two at the 1946 Nuremberg trials concerned conspiracy to wage, and waging, aggressive war.) Until now, Trump’s ever-more-exotic effusions have had an almost numbing effect. Almost. But by his embrace of Putin, and by postulating a slanderous moral equivalence — Putin kills journalists, the United States kills terrorists, what’s the big deal, or the difference? — Trump has forced conservatives to recognize their immediate priority.

Certainly conservatives consider it crucial to deny the Democratic party a third consecutive term controlling the executive branch. Extending from eight to twelve years its use of unbridled executive power would further emancipate the administrative state from control by either a withering legislative branch or a supine judiciary. But first things first. Conservatives’ highest priority now must be to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination in this the GOP’s third epochal intra-party struggle in 104 years.

Theodore Roosevelt campaigned for the Republican nomination on an explicitly progressive platform. Having failed to win the nomination, he ran a third-party campaign against the Republican nominee, President William Howard Taft, and the Democratic nominee, New Jersey governor Woodrow Wilson, who that November would become the first person elected president who was deeply critical of the American founding.

TR shared Wilson’s impatience with the separation of powers, which both men considered an 18th-century relic incompatible with a properly energetic executive. Espousing unconstrained majoritarianism, TR favored a passive judiciary deferential to elected legislatures and executives; he also endorsed the powers of popular majorities to overturn judicial decisions and recall all public officials.

Taft finished third, carrying only Utah and Vermont. But because Taft hewed to conservatism, and was supported by some other leading Republicans (e.g., Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, one of TR’s closest friends, and Elihu Root, TR’s secretary of war and then secretary of state), the Republican Party survived as a counterbalance to a progressive Democratic Party. In 1964, Barry Goldwater mounted a successful conservative insurgency against a Republican establishment that was content to blur and dilute the Republican distinctiveness that had been preserved 52 years earlier. Goldwater defeated New York’s Governor Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination, just as Taft had defeated TR, a former New York governor. Like Taft, Goldwater was trounced (he carried six states). But the Republican party won five of the next seven presidential elections. In two of them, Ronald Reagan secured the party’s continuity as the custodian of conservatism.

In 2016, a Trump nomination would not just mean another Democratic presidency. It would mean the loss of what Taft and then Goldwater made possible — a conservative party as a constant presence in American politics. It is possible Trump will not win any primary, and that by the middle of March our long national embarrassment will be over. But this avatar of unfettered government and executive authoritarianism has mesmerized a large portion of Republicans for six months. The larger portion should understand this: One hundred and four years of history is in the balance. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either. — George Will is a Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist. © 2015 The Washington Post

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428906/donald-trump-threat-republican-party

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18290
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump - the unknown unknowns
« Reply #619 on: December 24, 2015, 08:15:16 AM »
Not to pile on here, well maybe...

One observer adds to my point that schlonged really meant raped not screwed because it was certainly not what she wanted, but further than that, the Trump characterization is racist because the one doing the schlonging was a black man.  All he really did was eek out a win over her in a somewhat fair election.  Hardly a schlonging.  The words we choose matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To not know we have a nuclear triad might be inexcusable and disqualifying but how about a big time media mogul not knowing that Putin is having opposing journalists murdered and having the presumed Republican nominee taking Putin's side on that?  We criticize liberals for living in their cocoons on the east and west coast and never talking to anyone outside their viewpoint, but Trump seems to live in a cocoon of one.   It may include a couple of yes-men and yes-woman, Mrs. Trump, but no one tells him anything beyond what he already thinks he knows - unless they want to hear, 'you're fired'.

Kind words from Doug to our frontrunner on Putin not killing journalists this Christmas Eve: know the facts or shut the *%#* up.  Here is what we know:

Who is murdering Russian Journalists?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428916/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-mutual-admiration

That there is no proof that Putin is guilty of murder is an absurdity.

Persons interested in the truth can form a realistic impression of Putin’s guilt on the basis of three well-known murders, those of Yuri Shchekochikhin, Anna Politkovskaya, and Alexander Litvinenko. In each case, the pattern is the same: a serious political opponent, clear evidence of official involvement, and extraordinary efforts to sabotage the investigation. If one adds to this, Putin’s statement in his inaugural speech in 2000 that “in Russia, the President answers for everything,” the reality of the situation becomes completely clear. In each case, the pattern is the same: a serious political opponent, clear evidence of official involvement, and extraordinary efforts to sabotage the investigation. Shchekochikhin was a member of the State Duma and a reporter for the independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta. He investigated the mysterious 1999 Russian apartment bombings that brought Putin to power and, in his capacity as a journalist, he also investigated the case of the Grand and Three Whales furniture stores, which were founded by the father of a high-ranking FSB (Federal Security Service) official and had reportedly evaded millions of dollars in import duties. He had been in perfect health but became sick after returning to Moscow from a trip to Ryazan in July 2003. The illness progressed catastrophically, from peeling skin to “edemas of the respiratory system and brain” and finally death. His relatives were denied an official medical report about the cause of his illness and forbidden to take tissue samples. At his funeral, no one was allowed to approach the body. Perhaps the best-known killing of a political opponent was that of Alexander Litvinenko, a fugitive FSB agent who wrote about the 1999 apartment bombings and the FSB’s links to organized crime. Litvinenko became ill on November 1 after drinking tea with Andrei Lugovoy, the owner of a Moscow security company, and Lugovoy’s associate, Dmitri Kovtun, in the Pine Bar of the Millennium Hotel in London. For the next two days, he began to suffer from vomiting and diarrhea. His hair began falling out and he experienced a sharp drop in his white-blood-cell count. Litvinenko’s doctors suspected radiation poisoning, but only gamma and beta particles can penetrate the skin and there was no gamma or beta radiation in his blood. On November 23, he was pronounced dead.

Litvinenko wrote a statement in which he accused Putin of his murder. “You may succeed in silencing one man,” he wrote, “but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr. Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.” After Litvinenko’s death, British experts discovered polonium-210, an alpha emitter, in his urine. Polonium cannot pass through the body but is deadly when taken internally. Traces of polonium were subsequently found by the British police at the Pine Bar, at a sushi restaurant where Litvinenko dined with Lugovoy and Kovtun on October 16, and on the seat occupied by Lugovoy on a British Airways flight from Moscow to London on October 25.  

At a news conference after Litvinenko’s death but before the polonium was discovered, Putin said there was no indication that Litvinenko had died a violent death and that the case was being used for political purposes. Six months after Litvinenko’s death, the British prosecutor officially requested Lugovoy’s extradition. Putin refused, saying the Russian constitution barred sending citizens abroad for trial, even though Russia had signed the Council of Europe Extradition Convention in 2001. In December 2007, Lugovoy was elected to the Russian parliament. He insisted he was being framed by Britain’s MI5. In an interview with the Russian press about requests that he go to London for questioning, he said, “Why should I drop everything and rush off to England?” Another well-known dissident who was murdered was Anna Politkovskya, who reported for Novaya Gazeta on Russian atrocities in Chechnya. On October 7, 2006, she was shot four times in her apartment building after stepping out of the elevator on her floor.

After her death, Putin said that Politkovskaya’s influence was “minimal.” He also said that her murder “caused much more damage to the authorities than her reporting” — raising the possibility that, in his mind, if it had caused less damage, killing her would have been acceptable. In November 2008, three persons were put on trial for Politkovskaya’s murder: two Chechen brothers, Ibrahim and Dzhabrail Makhmudov, and Sergei Khadzhikurbanov, a former member of the Russian internal ministry’s organized-crime unit. A fourth person, Pavel Ryaguzov, a former FSB lieutenant colonel, was suspected of taking a leading role in the plot but was not charged due to a lack of evidence. A third brother, Rustam Makhmudov, the suspected triggerman, escaped abroad. Putin hinted that the mastermind was the exiled oligarch Boris Berezovsky, a political enemy of Putin’s.

The trial ended on February 19, 2009, with the acquittal of all three defendants amid signs that the FSB had sabotaged the prosecution. The FSB leaked information about the identity of the suspects, making it possible for the triggerman to escape, and prevented investigators from seizing Ryaguzov’s office computer. The ties between the assassination team, the FSB, and the police were also found to be far more extensive than was first revealed. Sergei Sokolov, the deputy editor of Novaya Gazeta, which conducted its own investigation, testified that Dzabrail Makhmudov was an FSB agent and that he and his brothers were recruited by their uncle, Lomi-Ali Gaitukayev, also an FSB agent, who reported to Ryaguzov and was in prison for the attempted murder of a Ukrainian businessman. In June 2009, the acquittals were overturned by the Russian Supreme Court, which cited procedural errors. In the meantime, Novaya Gazeta found evidence that Dmitry Pavlyuchenkov, a high-ranking Moscow police officer and witness at the first trial, had been hired by Gaitukayev to place Politkovskaya under surveillance. He gave the assassins her address and the weapons and bullets they used to kill her.

Russia’s Weimar Syndrome In August 2011, Pavluchenkov was arrested and charged with Politkovskaya’s murder. He struck a deal with the prosecution: In exchange for naming the mastermind of the crime, the charge against him was reduced from organizing the murder to involvement in it. But he never testified about the supposed mastermind. Instead, Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for the Investigative Committee, said that “Pavlyuchenkov . . . testified that he was told by Gaitukayev that the masterminds were Berezovsky and [Akhmed] Zakaev” (Zakaev is the head of the Chechen government in exile). In fact, Pavluchenkov’s deal with the prosecution made it possible to cover the trail leading to the mastermind. There is no evidence to support the official story that Berezovsky was behind the crime. On June 20, 2014, five persons were convicted. Gaitukayev, who recruited the gang, and his nephew Rustam Makhmudov, the gunman, received life in prison. Ibragim and Dzabarail Makhmudov were sentenced to 12 and 14 years respectively for following Politkovskaya on the day she was killed. Khadzhikurbanov received 20 years as an accomplice. None of them is likely to have known who ordered the killing.

The cases of Shchekochikhin, Litvinenko, and Politkovskaya are among the best-known of the political murders in Russia under Putin, but there are many others where the pattern of likely regime or FSB involvement and a subsequent sabotage of the investigation is clearly evident, including the cases of the American journalist Paul Klebnikov, human-rights activist Natalya Estimirov, Duma deputy Sergei Yushenkov, and others. Seen as a whole, these cases make clear that what is involved is deliberate terror against the opposition that, in the unitary Russian system, could only be directed by Putin. Unfortunately, American presidential candidates are often not interested in understanding the details of what is happening in Russia, and a particularly reckless candidate can become what Lenin described as a “useful idiot.” This is a person whose superficiality makes him ideally suited to serve Russian purposes and whose self-confidence is constantly stoked with signs of esteem from the Russian leaders, who assure him that whatever others may think of him, they are and will remain his true friends. — David Satter’s latest book, The Less You Know, the Better You Sleep: Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship under Yeltsin and Putin, Yale Press 2016
« Last Edit: December 24, 2015, 08:23:32 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18541
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #620 on: December 24, 2015, 11:03:31 AM »
"That there is no proof that Putin is guilty of murder is an absurdity"

I would add, "that there is no proof Hillary is guilty of multiple felonies" is also an absurdity.

There is much corruption here.  Not as violent and maybe more behind the scenes but ask any Eastern European immigrant.  They see it just about as corrupt here in the good old USA.

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #621 on: December 24, 2015, 01:27:02 PM »
"That there is no proof that Putin is guilty of murder is an absurdity"

I would add, "that there is no proof Hillary is guilty of multiple felonies" is also an absurdity.

There is much corruption here.  Not as violent and maybe more behind the scenes but ask any Eastern European immigrant.  They see it just about as corrupt here in the good old USA.

I have lived under Putin, my daughter still does.... My only comment is, "what's not to like?" Seriously.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #622 on: December 24, 2015, 03:22:27 PM »
DDF,

Could you explain more on Putin?  I would love to hear what you have to say and have experienced. This is the type of input the media will not give us.
PPulatie

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18541
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #623 on: December 24, 2015, 03:34:12 PM »
"I have lived under Putin, my daughter still does.... My only comment is, "what's not to like?" Seriously."

Well people who have criticized him have been found dead.  Who would believe this does not occur without his "OK"?


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #624 on: December 24, 2015, 04:07:48 PM »
ccp,

Objection!  Speculation!

Judge:  Sustained
PPulatie

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18541
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #625 on: December 24, 2015, 05:39:24 PM »
Anyone who thinks Putin knew nothing of this guy's murder with polonium (only 3 countries in the world can even produce it)  can go ahead and vote for Hillary because she is honest.  BTW the polonium trail led back to Russia but Putin refused to let the British police track beyond the airport.  Gee I wonder why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko

I rest my case.  :wink:

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #626 on: December 25, 2015, 08:18:10 AM »
Rebuttal,

So let's see..........

At some point, the new President will be having to engage in negotiations with Putin.  So will Putin be willing to negotiate with someone who has called him a killer? And will this cause him to take a more hardline approach with that person?

Or will Putin respond better to someone who shows a bit of discretion? 

I, for one, would want to negotiate with someone who showed the discretion...................
PPulatie

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #627 on: December 25, 2015, 02:12:27 PM »
DDF,

Could you explain more on Putin?  I would love to hear what you have to say and have experienced. This is the type of input the media will not give us.

Of course I can.

The last time I was in Russia, they shut down a TV station not far from my house for mocking Putin. I know some people won't like that, but I support it. Russia isn't for eveyone. Putin is not a fan of multiculturalism. He is quiet, doesn't talk and just listens....a trait common to many people in Russia, and smart.

Chechnya and journalists missing? So what? It's a hazardous place to work.

Former KGB agent winds up dead in Britian? Nothing was ever proven.

Besides, show me a government that doesn't kill, and we're going to act like unproven things can be held against one person in particular? Please.

People can say what they want, but Putin is a couple of things, he's PRO Russia and works to presrve Russia for Russians, unlike Obama and Liberals. Putin isn't apologetic, also unlike Barack and Liberals.

The only caveat is that one has to be mature enough to understand that culture does not equal skin colour.

Did you know, that on the busses in Russia, there are pictures of Fallen Russian soldiers, with their names? You can easily differentiate the Muslim soldiers serving in the photos.... they too adopt a Russian culture distinct from their religion because if they don't.... there will be hell to pay.

One culture per country. That is the only way things ever work. Violence will always be an integral part of that. Disagree? Show me a government, soldier, agent or police officer that will leave their weapon at home. They might tell you to, but they won't.

Violence.... it IS the human way. Any saying it isn't is mistaken.... and anyone judging someone else for being human, is a hypocrite.

Putin is good....for Russia.

Ps.... in all sincerity...I applied for the FSB, and wanted to work there with all my heart. When going throught the application process, you have to have a current member working there vouch for you... this person wanted American money more than us being a family in Russia...so...I don't work there and no longer live in Russia, pretty straight forward.

The thing I love about Putin and people that don't like people like him, is that he could care less about feelings, and goes with principles, the way we all should be.

The trick is, living in a country that will accept you guarding the same country. If you can do that, you belong.... if not.... you should find a new country, or fight the one that you're in. Most people lack the sack to do so. It is what it is.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2015, 02:24:34 PM by DDF »

DDF

  • Guest
Re: One other thought
« Reply #628 on: December 25, 2015, 02:29:08 PM »
America (from my perspective), is having a battle over who is, and who is not "American."

That won't be sorted out with words, and it won't last much longer either.

I guarantee it.

Look this post up in say three years. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #629 on: December 25, 2015, 02:56:05 PM »
Thank you. Interesting points.

When looking at it from a Russian perspective, Putin does make sense.

Unfortunately, we tend to look at things from an American perspective. We forget that Russia has throughout the ages been the victim (yes, I said that) of the Mongols and many other groups. Therefore, security and the fear of neighbors and insurgents becomes a prime factor in thinking.

You are right in my opinion about what is happening in the US. We are becoming balkanized along ethnic grounds and the liberal bias is making it worse every day. I too fear what it will be like in three years.
PPulatie

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #630 on: December 25, 2015, 09:07:54 PM »
Thank you. Interesting points.

When looking at it from a Russian perspective, Putin does make sense.

Unfortunately, we tend to look at things from an American perspective. We forget that Russia has throughout the ages been the victim (yes, I said that) of the Mongols and many other groups. Therefore, security and the fear of neighbors and insurgents becomes a prime factor in thinking.

You are right in my opinion about what is happening in the US. We are becoming balkanized along ethnic grounds and the liberal bias is making it worse every day. I too fear what it will be like in three years.

Balkanization is a good thing.

Victims? Not since World War II vs Germany, and they still got stomped, a country more than a 1000 years old.  8-)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18290
    • View Profile
Re: The candidate trailing Bernie Sanders by 13 in a Republican leaning poll
« Reply #631 on: December 25, 2015, 09:51:28 PM »
Merry Christmas everybody!  Especially my Jewish and atheism worshiping friends!  I have gone into the Christian Church and report back that they are still hiding their real intentions with talk of peace, good tidings and cheer.   )

Following up here...  The poll cited in Trump's favor still has him losing to Hillary and matching up against her the worst of the top 3 Republicans.  The recent poll that oversampled Republicans, pp's words, has Trump losing to Bernie by 13.  Huffington, cited by pp as the best compilation, has Trump  trailing Clinton by nearly 20.  Oh well.  Trump wanted Clinton to be President anyway.  We'd rather lose, get Hillary and blow the party up than have a liberal like Rubio or Cruz, we are to believe.  And George Will, Bill Kristol, Bret Stephens, WSJ, Weekly Standard, National Review, Hot Air and Powerline are all just crazy centrists.  Fuck em.  We'll build a conservative coalition that doesn't include anybody that called themselves a conservative before we redefined it.

Pat, I deserved the tough replies; I was kind of hard on Trump recently.  Regarding your long posts where points 1-273 basically say Trump is leading in the nomination polls and people underestimated him, I say, ... uh ... we know that.

As to not really answering my two questions, I understand.  They are unanswerable in defense of Trump.  Let's review:

1) What are the limits on government that are left after Trump completely blows off the 4th, 5th and 9th amendments for example on private enterprises using government powers instead of money, markets and consent for their takings?  The answer is, nothing limits government when these limits don't apply.  It isn't that we disagree, it is that the unanswerable question still remains, without those limits- what are the limits on government?  To the followup, what kind of Justices would he appoint if he doesn't have any sense of what our constitution is, what it says or what it is supposed to do, I received this back:  Well, Souter and Kennedy were lousy picks too.  In case this needs to be said, that is the reason for conservatives' concern, not something that alleviates it.  

2)  Regarding the illegal immigration roundup for deportation, my question was, how exactly is he going to do this?  (We all know he isn't.)  The answer received back is that like war, he is going to keep the details of how he will conduct these raids in the neighborhoods secret.  Nice try.  That answer almost worked for hiding a non-existent war strategy but it doesn't work at all for domestic policy.  Democrats and the media will eat him alive on this.   How is he going to do this?   When he tones the rhetoric down to the point where he is perceived as reasonable to a wider electorate, it will necessarily include some of what you call amnesty, and what everyone can see makes him no stronger or different than Cruz or the other competitors.  He has not answered this and if you answer it for him... that doesn't count.

Does anyone remember when the Feds under Janet Reno raided a Miami family home to get Elian Gonzalez?  It was an ugly scene.  Now we are going to do 20 million of these if you believe Trump.  They aren't all kids that just arrived, but they all do have a story.  Or will they self-deport - the line that worked so well for Romney.

Six-year-old Elian Gonzalez seized at gunpoint in a raid by 151 BORTAC agents in his Miami home, April 22, 2000:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGIJvGZq_Bc

At a ratio of 151 Federal agents to every 6 year boy seized, we will need 3 billion federal agents to conduct the secret, surprise raids we are promised.  At least they won't be constrained by that annoying 4th amendment.  
« Last Edit: December 25, 2015, 09:56:35 PM by DougMacG »

DDF

  • Guest
Re: The candidate trailing Bernie Sanders by 13 in a Republican leaning poll
« Reply #632 on: December 26, 2015, 07:28:54 AM »
Six-year-old Elian Gonzalez seized at gunpoint in a raid by 151 BORTAC agents in his Miami home, April 22, 2000:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGIJvGZq_Bc

At a ratio of 151 Federal agents to every 6 year boy seized, we will need 3 billion federal agents to conduct the secret, surprise raids we are promised.  At least they won't be constrained by that annoying 4th amendment.  

I'm failing to see whatthe problem with this was. A boy was returned to his father.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #633 on: December 26, 2015, 10:21:20 AM »
DMG, in  reply....

1. The poll I posted that have the Rep oversampled, there was an "interesting" factoid found in it by another person. Turns out that in an obscure area of the results, the poll numbers showed that it was the Dems oversampled. This was brought to the attention of the pollster and they admitted that the Dems were the ones oversampled. Just a minor error had occurred on that one line.

2. What are the limits on government power? That really is the question that needs to be answered. And of which there will always be controversy.

When I consider this question, I always go back to the Federalist Papers and the arguments presented for and against the Constitution. The basic argument with the anti-Federalist position was that with the Constitution, it make for a stronger government and eventually that government would usurp the powers of the states. The anti side wanted less government and more state.  (Interesting isn't it that now the conservatives promote the Federalist Papers, and the Dems go even more extreme.)

The anti-Federalists who wrote the arguments for their side absolutely predicted what would happen in the future. They literally foresaw that the government would become a monster agency controlling the lives of all and would essentially control the states. They also saw that a new political class would emerge, and they saw that the judiciary would become the problem that it is now.  Yet, the anti-Federalists are the ones held in disgrace.

The other side of the coin is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written about 240 years ago. (This part is going to set your hair on fire.) Then, there were only about 3.5 million people in the country. The country was rural without even electricity, sewage, and the other conveniences of life. There was no way that the authors of the Constitution  could see the progress to be made and the changes to the country. In large part, that is why the Constitution was written with such vagueness in many areas.

The progress of civilization dictates that there must be an ability to adapt to the new changes that will occur in society and technology. And there must be an entity that can lead the way for adaptation. Of course, that entity must be a government that is more centralized rather than spread out fully across the states.

To provide an example on technological changes, let's take the 4th Amendment. Back in the 1700's, weaponry was breach loading firearms and cannon. The 2nd Amendment gave the right to bear arms. There was no question of limitations because the arms were certainly needed for the young country.

Now we look to today. Machine guns, missiles, RPGs, tanks, etc. Does the 4th mean that all are acceptable to own? Why own fully functional RPG's? Also fully functional tanks with the ammo?  Are restrictions required? And what about the mentally ill or felons?  So the 4th is not all encompassing and inviolate. Then who must decide whether ownership of certain weapons are allowable? The states would have some rights, but also the government.

Look at technology. Computers and the Internet. This has provoked radical change in society. Everything has been affected from privacy rights to freedom of speech. Who and how is this to be regulated?  When the changes occur and they affect previously accepted norms, then litigation is required, usually at the state level, but also the federal level. But the courts are not prepared for this nor understand the arguments, so they rely often on previous precedent. Rulings are made that may make no sense in light of the new products, but occur anyway. Who is there to sort this out?

One can argue Article 10 and States Rights, but there are problems with this. Take gun ownership for example. You live in Florida and legally own rifles, shotguns and hand guns. You decide to go hunting in Maine, loan up the SUV and go. Then you hit Maryland and get pulled over for a traffic violation. They notice the weapons in the vehicle. You are immediately arrested and become a felon, because under Maryland law, you must register weapons all weapons. Maryland does not accept Article 10 and Florida law on firearms.

The problem of Governmental Power is the result of incompetent people being elected to Congress and the Presidency. They make policies that establish Federal Agencies to administer the new policies like the CFPB and Dodd Frank, Obamacare, the EPA, DOE, etc. And when the new Agencies get up and running, they are tasked with creating the laws and regulations to enforce the new policies.

You also have the "games" that the politicians play with their electorate and their votes. Take TPA for example.

Both sides wanted TPP to be passed. They knew that they could not get the 67 votes to pass. So they create the TPA bill that essentially says instead of 67 votes to pass, you need 51 votes to deny and they pass it. So they simply changed the rules to avoid their constitutional requirements.  (Cruz voted for this bill...later he said he was deceived by it.)

TPP then comes up and with it, 51 votes against cannot be mustered, so it passes, where otherwise it would have been denied. (Cruz votes against it and can provide the excuse that TPA deceived him, or he would have voted against it.  Misdirection?) These are the games they play.

Frankly, there are probably few limits left on governmental power. This is because government is like any firm. It must grow or it loses influence and dies. So it grows by assuming more power and responsibility.

The only way to restrain this growth is to cut off funding and to cut manpower. Inefficient agencies must be eliminated and others restructured. If not, continued growth will occur. This is how government has restrained and shrunk the military. But the government will not allow this to happen to them.

Trump has said that he is ready to eliminate 5 different  Agencies and wants to restructure others. Then he wants to reduce waste, spending and to make them more efficient. He would be treating the Agencies as a business. Will it work? Certainly the Agencies and the Congress will do everything they can to stop him. And for the Agencies, it is try to delay changes until Trump is out of office. But if you want to restrain Governmental Power, this is where it begins.

As to Supreme Court appointments, he has indicated that he wanted judges who would follow the rule of law. As to anything else, if he cites "who" he would appoint, it would just provide the anti-Trump forces more ammunition to go after him.

Immigration? You want detailed plans....? Whatever he says, he will be "eaten alive" anyway.

Eminent Domain? SCOTUS has effectively ruled on that case. In Kelo, they stated that Connecticutt had laws on the books that governed Eminent Domain and those laws would apply. So in that case, it was Article 10 and States rights that prevailed. But SCOTUS also stated that the States had the authority to change their laws to meet what their states wanted, so Article 10 applied. And SCOTUS also stated that the States had to define Public Interest for themselves. Article 10 again.

You argue that Trump will change all of this. I ask "HOW"? He does not have the power as President to do so. You might say by Executive Order, but that only applies to Federal Agencies, and this would not work.

Frankly, I see the Eminent Domain argument as irrelevant.



PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #634 on: December 26, 2015, 11:01:03 AM »
Not sure that this really is the thread for this conversation, but let's run with it , , , for now.

"The progress of civilization dictates that there must be an ability to adapt to the new changes that will occur in society and technology. And there must be an entity that can lead the way for adaptation. Of course, that entity must be a government that is more centralized rather than spread out fully across the states." 

This is profoundly wrong.   As I understand the central point of the American Creed is that our lives are NOT centrally directed.  Free Minds and Free Markets!

There is much that I disagree with it the rest of Pat's post, but this I think is the central point.



ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #635 on: December 26, 2015, 11:26:00 AM »
Knew people would not like that statement and all the other I wrote.   :-D :-D :-D
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #636 on: December 26, 2015, 12:00:25 PM »
You are missing my point. Maybe I did not put it properly.

There is a need for States Rights and Article 10 protections, but when they conflict with other states and the other states do not accept Article 10 protections, then thee must be a regulating authority.

When technology introduces new innovations that causes conflicts with previous standards and the courts cannot resolve the issues, then there must be a way to resolve the issues.

There are certain needs that only a federal government can take care of like defense. There are other needs that a state is better equipped to take care of. There must be a balance between the two. But unfortunately, government intrudes in places that it should not, and they do it as a need to justify their existence and to increase their power.

With the American Creed, yes, freedom, free markets etc. are the key. But this assumes that people are also honest and through working towards their own goals, they can also benefit mankind. But human nature does not act that way. Far too many will act in ways to benefit themselves at the expense of others. And when you have entities like the banks and Wall Street firms, how does the public get protected from their practices?

Federal Government must be a fine balance between serving the public in its best interests and becoming an overwhelming force that acts against the public good. The problem is that government is now populated by those who have no regard for this balance, but instead to seek an enhancement of their powers and authority.

Government must also seek the same balance in "American Creed" freedoms. It must allow freedom of speech but at the same time, be able to place limits on it like "shouting fire in a crowded theater". It must allow for 2nd Amendment protections, but at the same time, it must have the ability to restrict 2nd Amendment protections in the case of felons, etc.

Again, the problem is that the bureaucrats over exceed their authority and place harmful restrictions based upon a whim or in the case of global warming, false science. And these bureaucrats are put into their places by incompetent politicians who likely believe in their same causes.

The problem is how to restrain government from enacting these foolish policies.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #637 on: December 26, 2015, 03:03:49 PM »
So the answer is to unleash Donald Trump? 

What principles guide him over time?  Hard to tell with the many cognitively dissonant positions he has held in the last few years , , ,

What criteria would he apply to the selection of nominees to the Supreme Court? 

How would his approach to the Rule of Law differ from Baraq's?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #638 on: December 26, 2015, 04:02:21 PM »
So the answer is to unleash Donald Trump? 

What principles guide him over time?  Hard to tell with the many cognitively dissonant positions he has held in the last few years , , ,

What criteria would he apply to the selection of nominees to the Supreme Court? 

How would his approach to the Rule of Law differ from Baraq's?


It will be the top people.

His supreme court picks will be the greatest, most luxurious, most classy supreme court justices ever.

Rule of law?


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #640 on: December 27, 2015, 07:49:24 AM »
Yes, Donald has contributed to all of those Democrats, but at the same time he was also contributing to Republican candidates. That is what business people do, especially those living in the large urban areas.

If you want a purity candidate that has never done the same, fine. But that will eliminate large numbers of very competent people who could run the country quite well. What we are seeing with Donald is exactly the reasons why good competent people do not get into politics. Why put up with the crap and having reputations dragged across the mud? Why waste the time when they could be doing good elsewhere by making money and creating wealth and jobs?

If you want a professional class of politicians who are incompetent and care only about themselves, their party and getting elected, then let's just continue on the same course. Let's elect those who are "party approved" and "party tested" and then have them screw the people on a daily basis by passing legislation that is designed to assist their masters.

The US as it stands now only has a handful of years to change course. Will that happen under Rubio? Hell no. Under Cruz? Hell no. Both are nothing more than pawns in a huge game designed to benefit party interests and to make money.

Will it change under Trump? Probably not. But he has a better chance that the others because he can rally the masses better than most. Unfortunately, this will not be enough either because the entrenched interests that influence current politicians will not let hi prevail.

I am just going to sit back and watch Rubio be given the nomination. Then I will watch his failures and his sell outs and at the end, say I told you so. Hopefully then, I will be in a financial position where I can avoid the worst of the coming collapse.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18290
    • View Profile
The Trump Court
« Reply #641 on: December 27, 2015, 08:27:21 AM »
The ability of the constitution to adapt to new wisdom and changing times is contained in Article 5, the process for amending it, not in its alleged 'vagueness'.

"Congress shall pass no law abridging..."  still means Congress pass no law abridging... .

The 10th Amendment [Article 10?] states:  
"The 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."

I don't know what part of -those powers are reserved to the states and to the people- is confusing to the left or anyone else.

What kind of Justices would DT appoint?  What will guide him on possibly the most responsibility of the Presidency?  Based on what he has been saying, he will be guided what supporters of limited government (such as the Founders) consider to be wrongheaded thinking.

It isn't the relatively rare occurrence or narrow question of government executed private takings; it is the thinking and (lack of?) core principles that issue reveals.

A man's home is his castle.  In the cases discussed the person in the forefront was a woman and it was her castle that was taken.  The power of the crony capitalist, whether is isTrump or Pfizer, combined with the power of government is yugely greater than the individual.  The power of all of us is greater than the crony and the government only if we honor and stand by our agreed core principles.  The 4th amendment couldn't be more clear.  From law.cornell.edu:  The Fourth Amendment enforces the notion that “each man's home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.  The 5th amendment continues on that any takings are for "public use" and the 9th amendment, if it wasn't clear already, goes further to say that unenumerated rights receive the same protection as the specified ones.  Conservatives especially in the context of judicial picks are NOT looking for someone who wants to find wiggle room in that framework.  Politically, his support for big government power weakens the political argument that needs to be made against the big government party candidate the way the Romneycare weakened the case against Obamacare, even though arguably there was a difference.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2015, 09:00:07 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18290
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #642 on: December 27, 2015, 08:53:11 AM »
"Why put up with the crap and having reputations dragged across the mud?"

   - Very funny.  Who dragged more reputations through the gutter this campaign season than the namesake of this thread?

"care only about themselves, their party and getting elected, then let's just continue on the same course."

   - With respect, it is crazy to consider people like Rubio and Cruz establishment, self centered and running to continue the status quo.

"the entrenched interests that influence current politicians will not let him prevail."

  - If he wins or loses, it will come down to votes, not evil people behind a curtain.

"I am just going to sit back and watch Rubio be given the nomination. Then I will watch his failures and his sell outs..."

  - The table is being set perfectly for a very conservative and inspiring Rubio to emerge with an image of being reasonable and acceptable.   All he needs now are the votes! The check and balance against a sellout Republican President would be to elect a wise and conservative congress.  This is a big part of what failed during the W Bush years.  When he strayed in the wrong direction expanding the federal role in education and continuing the federal role in housing and everything else, no one stopped him.  Any failure to reform the country under a Rubio administration will come out of a divided Senate, not the White House.

« Last Edit: December 27, 2015, 08:58:26 AM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #643 on: December 27, 2015, 08:58:09 AM »
Are you going to do a Constitutional Convention for everything that comes up? Or Amendments to the Bill of Rights? Can't happen so there must be another mechanism.

Again, SCOTUS ruled on Kelo. They ruled that the State Laws were valid and it was up to the states to change the laws as necessary or desired. This is Article 10 in full display.
If you want to argue that SCOTUS overplayed its hand, then you might as well go back and force a revision to Marbury v Madison (1803) which set the boundaries for judicial review.

We are a country split into three basic factions now. The middle and extreme left, the moderates, and the middle and extreme right. The left and the right are rigid in their beliefs and want their views absolute. The middle wants compromise. What  will be the outcome, who knows? But I am predicting another round of financial and then societal collapse.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #644 on: December 27, 2015, 09:07:11 AM »
Come on...........the mud raking has been going on long before Trump. And he is saying only what needs to be said to destroy the pc culture.

As to Cruz and Rubio, look at their voting patterns versus what they say. Rubio is especially establishment and Cruz is only marginally better.

You don't believe that the entrenched interests influence everything that occurs? I guess that I just belong to the vast group of conspiracy minded folks who still believe that the moon landings never occurred.

Yeah, Rubio just needs the votes.  :-D  If he can't beat either Trump or Cruz, where are they going to come from for him to win the nomination?  Of course!!! The GOPe changing the convention rules so that they can put in Rubio. And if they do, goodbye GOP. And that will be well deserved.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18290
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #645 on: December 27, 2015, 09:46:08 AM »
I accept judicial review and within freedom of speech, if we still have that one, I reserve the right to point out WRONGLY DECIDED CASES.  And that is the reason people like the ones who come here ask about what kind of judges will he or she appoint.

You keep telling me that the protection against state and local government taking my liberty is the government that is taking my liberty. 

Just so you know, THAT IS NOT REASSURING.

We are far worse here now than the government the colonists were escaping.

When you form this great new Trump party that has no constitutional protections against new and expanding government abuses of power, please count me out.

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #646 on: December 27, 2015, 10:29:19 AM »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #647 on: December 27, 2015, 11:48:46 AM »
I cannot believe that no one caught the deliberate contradiction that I put into my comments.

I wrote about the anti-federalists who did not believe in a strong federal government, and that if you read what Brutus and others wrote, that they predicted what would happen in all three branches of governments, and which has since been proven to be correct.

I also wrote about the need for a "central" government that could sort out the various issues between the states and the contradictions in the laws that might exist between states.

Then I wrote that the problem with government are inherent in all institutions and firms........that they must grow and increase their power and influence or die.

Finally, I mentioned the problem with the politicians and that they are beholden to the special interests that further erode government's responsibility to the electorate.

The contradiction:

1. As proven by the Articles of Confederation, a loose collection of states means that nothing will get done. This is even more true in today's world.

2. A stronger federal government as presented by the pro federalists and which won the day will always lead to the federal government taking control of everything over the years and decades. It is human and corporate nature.

3. The end result is that neither can work over an extended period of time due to human nature.

What is the solution? We certainly can't restrain the growth of government. Many pretend that it is possible, but any measures taken to restrain government will only be temporary and in most cases, token measures only meant to appease a certain group. Yet, we can't allow it continued growth.

Thomas Jefferson was correct that the Tree of Liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. But now we have gone too long for such a response to work. Government has become far too strong to allow for rebellion.

The other alternative is to let government and the country crash, and then rebuild again. But how it gets rebuilt and into what form is unknowable until it is finished.

Or, we can go DDF's route and consider three separate countries...........
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #648 on: December 27, 2015, 01:44:50 PM »
Speaking for myself I caught it, but given that you are posting about Trump, I expected it  :lol: :evil: :lol:

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1131
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #649 on: December 27, 2015, 04:00:05 PM »
Since you caught it, what do you think about the premise?
PPulatie