TrickstaPriest

That's hardly unique to Trump. It's lamentably common in the US for elected officials to seem ignorant of the Constitution, especially of the Bill of Rights.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
I have the right to a palindromedary tagline, even if that's not in the constitution.

Your quote, or from something entertaining that I should read?

< sigh >
 
I lost a massive response post I'd worked on for a couple of hours and don't really feel up to re-writing it all.
 
Speaking as someone who was part of the small conservative minority section of the Republican party for over four decades, Fox News is a cheerleading organization rather than a news organization. They pick a winner and a loser on each issue then slant all their coverage toward that bias. They'll go after a Ted Cruz in the 2016 election (or Newt Gingrich in 2012) with much the same glee as they go against Democrats. They have a business model where they jump on or create a bandwagon then use the effect of that to attract or keep viewers.
 
When I spent 15 years doing massive amounts of political blogging, I actively avoided reading the Fox News website and never linked to it. I was much better served by reading articles on a particular story on several liberal-slanting websites (and British websites when those were available) then comparing those articles against each other to filter out the bias to figure out exactly what's happening.
 
The Atlantic, in my experience, doesn't do a good job of presenting the news or commentary in an unbiased manner. But when you're comparing it to Fox News, sure it's going to be better most of the time due to Fox's business model of "promote or denigrate" everything.
 
When I have some time, I'm hoping to read and comment on that particular Atlantic article link. But if I don't get around to it, well, it's the Atlantic.

I love it when a hope comes together.

I recently found cause to explore a bit more the political career of the influential and controversial late Senator, Joseph McCarthy. Some parallels to current political figures and events are quite startling. But I also find them an encouraging reminder that the American public has experienced fever delirium before, and it has passed.

A misreading of this page.
 
The blurb that leads to it from here (in the bottom right corner) suggested that the three listed R senators were the worst offenders, but it turns out that Murkowski and Collins do in fact vote against Trump "often", at least for Republicans.

I read Matthew Yglesias at Vox, Elizabeth Warren has a plan to save capitalism.
The subject is Elizabeth Warren's proposal to change corporate governance All corporations with more than 1 billion in revenues would have to get a federal charter The charter would expand the kinds of stakeholders that corporations consider in their decisions, from just shareholders to also employees, and even customers and surrounding communities.  To that end, companies would have to allow employees to elect 40% of the boards of directors. Also, if companies pay with shares, the shares can't be sold until five years after they were issued and three years after the last company stock buyback Any political activity would have to be approved by 75% of both shareholders and board members (and again, some of those would be employee-elected) I'm not sure this would pass a 1st amendment challenge? This is meant partly to counter Freidman's directive to maximize shareholder profits (within the limits of the law) Of course, that means corporations lobby heavily to change what "limits of the law" are. See the line about requirements for approving political activity. It is hoped this will help encourage reinvestment, reduce executive compensation, and improve corporate behavior, using Capitalist methods, not socialist redistributive ones. Then, I found a couple of responses at National Review, with Samuel Hammond's Elizabeth Warren’s Corporate Catastrophe
Don't do that; it will turn the corporate unicorns into glitter glue (his imagery, not mine) Yes, Germany has similar requirements, and they manage to be the economic powerhouse of Europe, but they haven't produced as many unicorns as the US has the labor share problem is best explained with real estate prices Wage stagnation is best explained as resulting from a decline in productivity (I was under the impression that productivity was up?) Fiduciary Duty is not really the primary driver it is claimed to be. Volkswagen had board members partly chosen by employees, and they still managed to be an old-boy network doing naughty favors. Employees helping choose board members didn't fix the problem.  and Kevin Williamson's Elizabeth Warren’s Batty Plan to Nationalize . . . Everything
This one is batty itself. and doesn't seem accurate. The main argument was that if we put annoying restrictions on our big corporations, they'll go away and take their moneymaking with them.
 
I'm still working through Reason Magazine's response:
https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/20/elizabeth-warrens-corporate-buttinskyism
 
 
Sorry about the long post. Doing little summaries sometimes helps me understand complex proposals.
 

I applaud Vondy and all other parties involved for the reasonable and informative nature of your recent discussions. ?

This is what computer security people have been screaming about for like a decade.
 
My field:
 
https://xkcd.com/2030/

This is what computer security people have been screaming about for like a decade.
 
My field:
 
https://xkcd.com/2030/

"May you live in interesting times..."

I have stayed away from the hero boards, ngd, and this thread in particular for a while.   Mostly I have simply followed certain news developments closely, and the Mueller investigation in particular.   
I wrote a paper on investigation of high level executive branch wrongdoing while in law school.   It required a close scrutiny of the history of such investigations,  particularly Watergate,  the Iran-contra scandal and the Starr investigation.   
My impression is that we as a country need to prepare for the worst with regard to the ultimate findings of the investigation,  and we also must be capable of doing what must needs be done.  
In effect, that requires a change of control of one or both chambers of Congress.  I have zero confidence in the current Congressional leadership to rise above selfish partisan politics and make the choice that the Constitution and the law requires.  The Senate will not do so except under enormous external pressure from the public and the press.  
 
In the event we as a people and a country do not rise to the challenge,  history and posterity will record our fecklessness for all time.

You're right, I could have put that a lot less abrasively. We all deserve better than that here. Vondy, I appologize.

I am not disagreeing.  But the 'leftist' "messaging" is far from 'poor people are lazy'.  It is extremely easy to run a campaign that attacks 'big money', but (as we've seen with the progressive shift) it undermines itself.  I would much rather have a rhetoric that doesn't bank on undermining poor, because that makes itself more powerful (and historically, is even more dangerous than just undermining political opponents).
 
And yes, it is still pretty painful to see.
 
 
I did just post a financial article that outlined how Obama increased the deficit the most out of recent history.  Of course, he did inherit two wars and a "banking crisis".  I think some of the estimation took this into account, but I would need hard data and methodology information.
 
Are the voter rolls unclean?  Is eligibility a major issue in the voting polls?  So far there's nothing to indicate that it is.  If you have any information otherwise I would be very interested.   As I said, I've already re-evaluated my thoughts on medicare vs military cost (and before, on gun control) based on this very long thread.
 
With gerrymandering, though.  There's a rather... impressive history with gerrymandering, and there is an interesting discussion from Extra Credits on how gerrymandering may be raising extremism in politics.  We can see a clear, discernable impact from it.  If there is a huge problem with bad voter rolls, then we should definitely fix that.  But is there?
 
 
 
I'm not talking about personalities.  We literally have a political party who's ingrained in the belief that global warming isn't real.  Not even as personal belief, as political message.  That political message is then broadcast on the most popular news network in the country, and spread to conspiracy theorist radio talk show hosts where it is further reinforced.
 
We are the only modern country.  In the world.  That treats global warming this way.  So yes, I compare it to someone saying "your cancer isn't real".  Yes, it was rhetoric, and I apologize over being livid on that topic.
 
If we want reasonable, real policy, we need a country that actually talks about it.  This isn't a personality issue, it's that no one is going to create practical policies until we are well past the stage of climate change being political.  Sure, I hate the democrats for making it this way, but they aren't the ones who need to give in over that.
 
 
The democratic party needs to be broken up, and I'm hoping the recent changes in politics may change that.  But bad economics aside, that's not what's making my hair go white.  The reason you are getting so much opposition is the problem not of comparing two crap sandwiches, it's comparing a bad flu to an ultimately lethal disease, or what people perceive to be.  There is some illegitimate fear mongering, but nothing makes me sicker than hearing that "people are too entitled" when working with coworkers who work 3-4 jobs.  If you want to talk to people and convince them of your position, then, let's talk about the current financial situation.
 
 
If we want to talk about taxes and not high-level political ideals, I'm fine with that.  The current financial system isn't helping the working class.  If you think that can be fixed by lowering taxes across the board, I'd be interested in knowing how.  The "treasury" is not just what is held by the government, but what is siphoned off by the second estate (or the merchant class). 
 
The past-super-rich are being outstripped financially by a new generation of them.  It's understandable companies like Apple and Amazon are taking heat in politics now.  But the way Amazon workers, Tesla workers, and even Google employees are treated is not good.  I honestly do not know how to regulate the power of the new era of corporations other than higher taxes and greater regulation.  How would you go about this?  All I got in my hand for this is taxes and regulations.

Only now?  Rookie.  I have decades of experience being confused at work.

I am not disagreeing.  But the 'leftist' "messaging" is far from 'poor people are lazy'.  It is extremely easy to run a campaign that attacks 'big money', but (as we've seen with the progressive shift) it undermines itself.  I would much rather have a rhetoric that doesn't bank on undermining poor, because that makes itself more powerful (and historically, is even more dangerous than just undermining political opponents).
 
And yes, it is still pretty painful to see.
 
 
I did just post a financial article that outlined how Obama increased the deficit the most out of recent history.  Of course, he did inherit two wars and a "banking crisis".  I think some of the estimation took this into account, but I would need hard data and methodology information.
 
Are the voter rolls unclean?  Is eligibility a major issue in the voting polls?  So far there's nothing to indicate that it is.  If you have any information otherwise I would be very interested.   As I said, I've already re-evaluated my thoughts on medicare vs military cost (and before, on gun control) based on this very long thread.
 
With gerrymandering, though.  There's a rather... impressive history with gerrymandering, and there is an interesting discussion from Extra Credits on how gerrymandering may be raising extremism in politics.  We can see a clear, discernable impact from it.  If there is a huge problem with bad voter rolls, then we should definitely fix that.  But is there?
 
 
 
I'm not talking about personalities.  We literally have a political party who's ingrained in the belief that global warming isn't real.  Not even as personal belief, as political message.  That political message is then broadcast on the most popular news network in the country, and spread to conspiracy theorist radio talk show hosts where it is further reinforced.
 
We are the only modern country.  In the world.  That treats global warming this way.  So yes, I compare it to someone saying "your cancer isn't real".  Yes, it was rhetoric, and I apologize over being livid on that topic.
 
If we want reasonable, real policy, we need a country that actually talks about it.  This isn't a personality issue, it's that no one is going to create practical policies until we are well past the stage of climate change being political.  Sure, I hate the democrats for making it this way, but they aren't the ones who need to give in over that.
 
 
The democratic party needs to be broken up, and I'm hoping the recent changes in politics may change that.  But bad economics aside, that's not what's making my hair go white.  The reason you are getting so much opposition is the problem not of comparing two crap sandwiches, it's comparing a bad flu to an ultimately lethal disease, or what people perceive to be.  There is some illegitimate fear mongering, but nothing makes me sicker than hearing that "people are too entitled" when working with coworkers who work 3-4 jobs.  If you want to talk to people and convince them of your position, then, let's talk about the current financial situation.
 
 
If we want to talk about taxes and not high-level political ideals, I'm fine with that.  The current financial system isn't helping the working class.  If you think that can be fixed by lowering taxes across the board, I'd be interested in knowing how.  The "treasury" is not just what is held by the government, but what is siphoned off by the second estate (or the merchant class). 
 
The past-super-rich are being outstripped financially by a new generation of them.  It's understandable companies like Apple and Amazon are taking heat in politics now.  But the way Amazon workers, Tesla workers, and even Google employees are treated is not good.  I honestly do not know how to regulate the power of the new era of corporations other than higher taxes and greater regulation.  How would you go about this?  All I got in my hand for this is taxes and regulations.

To ask a question of Thomas Sowell:  "Why should anyone with power espouse 'leftist ideas' or 'populist ideas' when those ideas suggest weakening the money and power of those people?"  This is why the Republican party will never address 'Gerrymandering', despite it's obvious and blatant corruptive politics.
 
This isn't about economics.  It's about power.  It never was about anything else.
 
If you want to reduce spending, an earlier comment on this thread suggested minority governments spend less than majority governments, historically.
 
If we are talking about democrats being fiscally poor decision makers, well:
 
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
 
 
Me.  I would like a government that acknowledged that Global Climate Change isn't a fantasy, and that it could potentially end our civilization if not curtailed?  You know, like every other country in the world is doing?  Imagine the way the world might look if we hadn't had politicians and 'news entertainers' literally accepting cash for our future.  If 30-40 years ago we had congressmen who actually said "yeah that sounds bad we should look into this"?
 
If you want to talk about finding politicians unpleasant, how about people who essentially say "nah your kid don't got cancer" and who block every attempt to research, analyze, and cure that condition.  Who devote substantial resources to gaslight you and make it sound buffoonish, ridiculous, or "unpatriotic".  "Your kid doesn't got cancer, I have a doctor who will say so!"

To ask a question of Thomas Sowell:  "Why should anyone with power espouse 'leftist ideas' or 'populist ideas' when those ideas suggest weakening the money and power of those people?"  This is why the Republican party will never address 'Gerrymandering', despite it's obvious and blatant corruptive politics.
 
This isn't about economics.  It's about power.  It never was about anything else.
 
If you want to reduce spending, an earlier comment on this thread suggested minority governments spend less than majority governments, historically.
 
If we are talking about democrats being fiscally poor decision makers, well:
 
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
 
 
Me.  I would like a government that acknowledged that Global Climate Change isn't a fantasy, and that it could potentially end our civilization if not curtailed?  You know, like every other country in the world is doing?  Imagine the way the world might look if we hadn't had politicians and 'news entertainers' literally accepting cash for our future.  If 30-40 years ago we had congressmen who actually said "yeah that sounds bad we should look into this"?
 
If you want to talk about finding politicians unpleasant, how about people who essentially say "nah your kid don't got cancer" and who block every attempt to research, analyze, and cure that condition.  Who devote substantial resources to gaslight you and make it sound buffoonish, ridiculous, or "unpatriotic".  "Your kid doesn't got cancer, I have a doctor who will say so!"

To ask a question of Thomas Sowell:  "Why should anyone with power espouse 'leftist ideas' or 'populist ideas' when those ideas suggest weakening the money and power of those people?"  This is why the Republican party will never address 'Gerrymandering', despite it's obvious and blatant corruptive politics.
 
This isn't about economics.  It's about power.  It never was about anything else.
 
If you want to reduce spending, an earlier comment on this thread suggested minority governments spend less than majority governments, historically.
 
If we are talking about democrats being fiscally poor decision makers, well:
 
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
 
 
Me.  I would like a government that acknowledged that Global Climate Change isn't a fantasy, and that it could potentially end our civilization if not curtailed?  You know, like every other country in the world is doing?  Imagine the way the world might look if we hadn't had politicians and 'news entertainers' literally accepting cash for our future.  If 30-40 years ago we had congressmen who actually said "yeah that sounds bad we should look into this"?
 
If you want to talk about finding politicians unpleasant, how about people who essentially say "nah your kid don't got cancer" and who block every attempt to research, analyze, and cure that condition.  Who devote substantial resources to gaslight you and make it sound buffoonish, ridiculous, or "unpatriotic".  "Your kid doesn't got cancer, I have a doctor who will say so!"

To ask a question of Thomas Sowell:  "Why should anyone with power espouse 'leftist ideas' or 'populist ideas' when those ideas suggest weakening the money and power of those people?"  This is why the Republican party will never address 'Gerrymandering', despite it's obvious and blatant corruptive politics.
 
This isn't about economics.  It's about power.  It never was about anything else.
 
If you want to reduce spending, an earlier comment on this thread suggested minority governments spend less than majority governments, historically.
 
If we are talking about democrats being fiscally poor decision makers, well:
 
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
 
 
Me.  I would like a government that acknowledged that Global Climate Change isn't a fantasy, and that it could potentially end our civilization if not curtailed?  You know, like every other country in the world is doing?  Imagine the way the world might look if we hadn't had politicians and 'news entertainers' literally accepting cash for our future.  If 30-40 years ago we had congressmen who actually said "yeah that sounds bad we should look into this"?
 
If you want to talk about finding politicians unpleasant, how about people who essentially say "nah your kid don't got cancer" and who block every attempt to research, analyze, and cure that condition.  Who devote substantial resources to gaslight you and make it sound buffoonish, ridiculous, or "unpatriotic".  "Your kid doesn't got cancer, I have a doctor who will say so!"

That doesn't mean we then paint those same people with a broad brush. Also, I think an intelligent person who is familiar with what those people are on record with, can intuit when their counsel is forcing him to rethink, backtrack, and stand there ironically saying "I really meant this other thing all along!"
 
Obviously, based on his hair-trigger and vulgarian bombast Trump ends up backtracking based on trusted counsel instead of avoiding the minefields altogether. Most of his wounds are 100% self-inflicted, but a lot of what he says is, to the meanest understanding, intended to be tactical. 

For instance, Trump went from (position one) wanting us out of NATO to (position two) grappling for leverage over NATO with threats to (position three) saying how important NATO is. Listen to what Mattis says about NATO in that video. Trumps lands on his position.
 
Same thing with Russia. Trump says Putin is coming until his Dan Coats makes a wry quip amounting to "Oh Really?" on national television. Suddenly the trip is on hold. Listen to what Mattis, Pompeo, and Coats are saying about our Russia policies, not Trump.
 
My point is: Trump is a bombastic, off-the-cuff, erratic, drama-seeking, reality star pretending to be President. He's an amateur and a liability not just for America, but the entire free world. He sells everything in big, unrealistic, manic terms. He is the poster boy for "unreliable narrator."
 
Its sophomoric stuff - the kind of trash talk you expect on a football field. Its not presidential. But, what makes me really sad, is that it works. Our media keeps falling for it and going off on his designated tangents instead of focusing on what his other hand is doing. Important information goes unreported or left without depth and context.
 
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a trumpvershterer, but I do understand the man. He's constantly grappling for leverage in negotiations and seeking to dominate the news cycle. The latter, which is sphincter-clenchingly cringe-worthy, is something he really excels at. The former, however, works way better in business than politics.
 
If you want to know what our policies actually are, what we are actually doing, and what the actual thinking is behind it you don't listen to Trump or the media. You dig for your own facts, read between the lines, and listen to key people around Trump. Which is why I posted the video.
 
Does he always listen to them? I sincerely doubt it. He has too much ego. Does he undermine them? I bet he does on occasion. But there are a handful of people who do seem to be influencing him behind the scenes and are probably the reason we aren't doing everything wrong.
 
My prayer is that he's too busy preening in the mirror and fund-raising and campaigning until 2020 to seriously disrupt the work and plans of his smarter cabinet members. Is that a long shot? Maybe. But, if it weren't, I wouldn't be using the word "prayer" to begin with, would I?
 
 
 
 
 

He hates Powerpoint, and the enemy of Powerpoint is my friend.

Pretty much, yeah.
 
Workers of the world, unite!
 
 

The thing is, I don't think our traditional definitions of "Right" and "Left" remain useful. "
The GOP has embraced the administrative state, blank check spending, and conservative social authoritarianism.
From a high-level view,, I don't see our present "right" as being meaningfully different than the radical progressive "left."
Sure, the specific policies and sensibilities differ, but both are all too willing to trample on liberty to legislate their morality while bankrupting us. 

*Breaks out his musical number*
 
I should be ecstatic for a process democratic in world where the common man has very little power.
  But the truth of my situation in this part of my nation means the outlook for my views winning remains quite dour.
Today I aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam a Democrat.
.A sacrificial Lamb- a small blue dot in a sea of red. Some might tell me I shouldn't have gotten out of bed, I think that someone's in my head, yet still I am voting democrat!
Today I am, working up the stream salmon like, taking up a cross wind hike. Possibly getting glared at by a red hat wearer with a name like Mike. Today I am a Demooocrat! 
Of course it's not like I am losing , it's the primaries we are choosing- I'm picking those will likely lose in fall!
It's not the party I adore, but I've held my nose before, and they seem saner than the other guys.
And every little lad or lady running might be shady, and on either side they've got their pack of lies.
But in comparing bad to worse, inside this doggerel verse
there's really no competition here for me
The nation has lurched so deeply to the right that I think if he were alive Reagan would be laughed out of his own party
So I'll try nudge things left, of hope I'm not bereft, of any sort of civic minded might
into the crimson coated mob I try to do my job, that makes me long for the sex appeal of game of thrones
I will make my selection for who will lead us into election, and watch the results come in at night
And hope to hell I am not alone!
Today I am, a donkey at a packaderm watering hole
trying to sip my share
hoping I don't get stepped on
hoping someone else here cares
for the issues that matter to me, as I float blue dot in this scarlet sea
for today I democraaaaaaaaaaat!