The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[nonobaddog]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/3458...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

American Couple Believing 'Evil Is A Make-Believe Concept' Bike Through Territory Near Afghan Border. ISIS Stabs Them To Death.

It is too bad these buttercup products of liberal unicorn teachings didn't learn anything about reality - since they are too dead to learn anything.

 

[actaeon277]

I'm sure they did learn...



60 seconds before their death.

 

[jamil]

My point was all the moderate Dems that get lumped into Antifa (basically). I think of Donnelly as a moderate dem.

I agree he's not a "spokesperson" type guy - either by role or by nature. (I don't think I've ever met him, but I know people who are involved on that side of the aisle.)

But see - what you did there - is to lump him together with despicable people based on party. Thanks for confirming my assertion.

Donnelly isn’t a far left nutbag. He’s more of a traditional pro-union, suck-up-to-working-class pretender kind of democrat. But anyway, why does he vote 84% with nutbags?

I would hardly equate that with saying everyone on the right is literally Hitler. Like I said, the right does it too. But right now the left is far more dangerous.

 

[jamil]

LOL, when I was in law school, I learned a lot from an older lawyer on a forum who gave me a ton of perspective and really knew his stuff. His avatar was a stick figure of a grumpy mouse and at top it said "People are stupid" and below it said "I hate them all".

I always wondered why a guy so kind and knowledgeable would have that as his avatar. The older I get, the more I understand...

I'm with Jamil, I'm off bandwagons. I don't even know what the political parties really stands for these days outside of wanting power and purse strings. They seem to think that the libertarian model of coherence is to be striven for, but without the limitations on government.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Fargo again.

 

[indiucky]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Fargo again.

I tried dude but got the same message...Sorry bro...

Fargo,

We tried but we already have loved you too much long time...

 

[indiucky]

Donnelly isn’t a far left nutbag. He’s more of a traditional pro-union, suck-up-to-working-class pretender kind of democrat. But anyway, why does he vote 84% with nutbags?

I would hardly equate that with saying everyone on the right is literally Hitler. Like I said, the right does it too. But right now the left is far more dangerous.

I like Jim Webb...Always have..."I've met Jim Webb...Know Jim Webb...And you Senator Donnelly are no Jim Webb..."

[video=youtube;QjmRr6r-9zg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjmRr6r-9zg[/video]

[video=youtube;Dlmrrccjm8k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlmrrccjm8k[/video]

 

[Fargo]

I tried dude but got the same message...Sorry bro...

Fargo,

We tried but we already have loved you too much long time...

Awwwww, I'm blushing.

 

[indiucky]

Awwwww, I'm blushing.

 

[jamil]

I agree, with almost every part of that. Well, not the part about not being convinced about inconsistency.

Trump has every authority to be inconsistent, on this matter and many others. Pardons, clemencies, foreign policy, Obamacare, gun control, marital fidelity. The list goes on and on.

Trump is absolutely being consistent. He may not be consistent with your reasoning. But he is consistent with his.

 

[BugI02]

Coming back to this, I think we are more aligned within this framework.

The position of POTUS is allowed to be inconsistent in matters of executive authority, without calling into question the integrity of the office. Decision may appear inconsistent, but when presented with the information available the decisionmakers, the rationale could be made clear. But, the executive has no (or very little) obligation to share that internal deliberative material and process.

My point is more personal to Donald Trump and his proclivities. The person, rather than the office. Those personal integrity inconsistencies are important when evaluating the person in the position.

I'm going to use ending DACA as a parallel argument to attempt to clarify

DACA began at the whim of one president; it is a program of selective enforcement of existing law, never enacted by congress. As an executive order it should be just as easily undone by (this) other President and is squarely within his power to do so

But when he attempts to take such corrective action, suddenly there is a purity (of motivation) test imposed by the courts. Suddenly he must have a clearly articulable, non-discriminatory rationale that meets SJW approval in order to exercize his authority. Whether many people see this as right or wrong depends not on the nature of the presidential authority but on whether they see the expected result of the policy as right/wrong good/bad. It is an erosion of presidential authority

People in many top government jobs serve at the pleasure of the president. Their clearances derive from the needs of the job they are appointed to. There is little dispute of the presidential authority to terminate an appointee's employment by the administration; but because, in select cases, it was traditional for prior appointees to retain their clearances in case they could provide useful information or advice to the duly elected authorities - people again feel presidential exercise of legitimate authority should now be second-guessable by the public at large. This also is an erosion of presidential authority, and people are guided in their opinion of it by their feels, whether they feel it is fair or not
I don't think leveraging access to information not publicly available should be available to support ex-employees in their desires to get cushy jobs consulting to fortune 500 companies on global security nor obtaining employment by a news network. Neither one falls under the proffered rationale of providing information continuity or advice to an administration. The former was likely tolerated much as lobbying after elective careers are over is, the other is adversarial. Neither should really be tolerated going forward. This has all the hallmarks of trying to impose a "fairness" test on executive discretion and establish a new protected class. Again people judge the appropriateness of the exercize of undisputed presidential authority by whether they agree with the results, not whether the authority exists

It is a bad idea to try to put presidential authority under judicial review for abstract, extra-legal concepts like fairness. That is also not traditional

 

[jamil]

Consistency or not, Trump should revoke Hillary’s clearance. Anyone who is “extremely reckless” with their highest clearance should not have it.

 

[BugI02]

FIrst, I did not say that people who don't see things the way I do are all irrational or unreasonable. I don't think that and never have. I do doubt the ability of people to be rational or reasonable who support Trump in all things. I find that irrational and unreasonable.

Second, let me provide a litmus test or 2. Do you (or your cousin) support Trump's ban on bump stocks? Or the language he used against Gold Star families?

Over broad generalization. Against [all] Gold Star families, or against one in particular? Should we praise the son's sacrifice when the father attempt's to use it as leverage to gain a platform for his political preferences? The son made the ultimate sacrifice, the father verged on stealing his honor

What about McCain's service? Disdain for all servicemen, or just that particular one? Factoring in McCain's leveraging "war hero" status into a lifelong elected career of little accomplishment? I can question the bona fides of a member of a class without questioning the entire class. Overbroadening the argument from the specific to the general is an appeal to feeling

 

[Alpo]

Or...the feeling you don't like anything very much.

 

[BugI02]

I've never thought you to be one that blindly supported him in all things, particularly what I know about you as a man of faith and your regard for family/marriage.

Sigh. I'll be speaking for both Indi and I a little bit, I hope he feels free to call me on it if I get it wrong

There are already plenty of people vociferously calling out Trump on every little [or big] thing. The fact that we don't feel the need to add our voices to the chorus howling for his destruction/failure does not mean we approve of any behavior we fail to join the pack in condemning. If someone wants to know how I [or Indi] feel about a particular shortcoming, they could ask that particular, specific, limited in scope question

I'm very much a "dance with the one that brung ya'" kind of a guy, when I married I pledged my life to another for the duration of that life. My vow before God very much matters to me. Trump's behavior in this area disgusts me and I certainly couldn't see myself pursuing a friendship with the man. I don't feel that disqualifies him from my support in doing the job as president that I elected him to do. I suspect that each little crack in a man's backbone of righteousness can add up to an eventual loss of moral spine but I suspect where and when the load gets great enough to do so varies according to the man

I prefer to wait for the actual betrayal [which may never come] before awarding him his 30 pieces, rather than treat each deviation from what I would do as a sign of the [coming] apocalypse. The alternative to Trump, in candidate as well as trajectory of country, were very horrifying. I will overlook or forgive quite a bit of personal failings in service of turning the country from a downward path

Trump's lack of morality does not impugn my own morality because I fail to denounce it often enough or vociferously enough [in the judgement of others]

 

[BugI02]

Having had high clearances in the military and in civilian life, I believe there is value in maintaining those clearances.

It is not that the person has continuing access to classified information. Au contraire. However, it does prevent said person from opening their mouths in many public arenas because they may want to speak about an area that is classified but have no direct knowledge of current activities.

I hope that makes sense.

Unfortunately, that cleared status lends unearned gravitas to pronouncements by such as Brennan about subjects of which they have no knowledge or evidence; for example his pronouncements on "collusion"

If you want to say stripping the man of his clearance violates "tradition", you should also examine whether becoming publicly partisan and adversarial to the current form of the government you used to work for violates "tradition"

If you wish to claim it violates the law; you are on much, much shakier ground. IMO the more Trump makes this personal, the less traction there is to challenge the decision in court. If the president says "I don't like you, you're fired" how would you go about challenging that assertion on factual grounds?

 

[Fargo]

Sigh. I'll be speaking for both Indi and I a little bit, I hope he feels free to call me on it if I get it wrong

There are already plenty of people vociferously calling out Trump on every little [or big] thing. The fact that we don't feel the need to add our voices to the chorus howling for his destruction/failure does not mean we approve of any behavior we fail to join the pack in condemning. If someone wants to know how I [or Indi] feel about a particular shortcoming, they could ask that particular, specific, limited in scope question

I'm very much a "dance with the one that brung ya'" kind of a guy, when I married I pledged my life to another for the duration of that life. My vow before God very much matters to me. Trump's behavior in this area disgusts me and I certainly couldn't see myself pursuing a friendship with the man. I don't feel that disqualifies him from my support in doing the job as president that I elected him to do. I suspect that each little crack in a man's backbone of righteousness can add up to an eventual loss of moral spine but I suspect where and when the load gets great enough to do so varies according to the man

I prefer to wait for the actual betrayal [which may never come] before awarding him his 30 pieces, rather than treat each deviation from what I would do as a sign of the [coming] apocalypse. The alternative to Trump, in candidate as well as trajectory of country, were very horrifying. I will overlook or forgive quite a bit of personal failings in service of turning the country from a downward path

Trump's lack of morality does not impugn my own morality because I fail to denounce it often enough or vociferously enough [in the judgement of others]

It was T-lex's standard, not mine, so I can't speak with any authority on it. That said, my recollection is that you would not fit in his classification even before the above post.

I don't demand that anyone denounce him, like I said earlier I am torn on the whole thing. All I ask is that we use the same measure on those we like as those we dislike.

 

[BugI02]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Fargo again.

I tried dude but got the same message...Sorry bro...

Fargo,

We tried but we already have loved you too much long time...

I can't get him, either

 

[Alpo]

Unfortunately, that cleared status lends unearned gravitas to pronouncements by such as Brennan about subjects of which they have no knowledge or evidence; for example his pronouncements on "collusion"

If you want to say stripping the man of his clearance violates "tradition", you should also examine whether becoming publicly partisan and adversarial to the current form of the government you used to work for violates "tradition"

If you wish to claim it violates the law; you are on much, much shakier ground. IMO the more Trump makes this personal, the less traction there is to challenge the decision in court. If the president says "I don't like you, you're fired" how would you go about challenging that assertion on factual grounds?

**** tradition. I intimated that it forced clearance holders to keep their mouths shut about things they know and things that are going on that might be classified. Opinions on dumb categories like collusion are of little interest to real truth seekers like me.

 

[nonobaddog]

I'm going to use ending DACA as a parallel argument to attempt to clarify

DACA began at the whim of one president; it is a program of selective enforcement of existing law, never enacted by congress. As an executive order it should be just as easily undone by (this) other President and is squarely within his power to do so

But when he attempts to take such corrective action, suddenly there is a purity (of motivation) test imposed by the courts. Suddenly he must have a clearly articulable, non-discriminatory rationale that meets SJW approval in order to exercize his authority. Whether many people see this as right or wrong depends not on the nature of the presidential authority but on whether they see the expected result of the policy as right/wrong good/bad. It is an erosion of presidential authority

People in many top government jobs serve at the pleasure of the president. Their clearances derive from the needs of the job they are appointed to. There is little dispute of the presidential authority to terminate an appointee's employment by the administration; but because, in select cases, it was traditional for prior appointees to retain their clearances in case they could provide useful information or advice to the duly elected authorities - people again feel presidential exercise of legitimate authority should now be second-guessable by the public at large. This also is an erosion of presidential authority, and people are guided in their opinion of it by their feels, whether they feel it is fair or not
I don't think leveraging access to information not publicly available should be available to support ex-employees in their desires to get cushy jobs consulting to fortune 500 companies on global security nor obtaining employment by a news network. Neither one falls under the proffered rationale of providing information continuity or advice to an administration. The former was likely tolerated much as lobbying after elective careers are over is, the other is adversarial. Neither should really be tolerated going forward. This has all the hallmarks of trying to impose a "fairness" test on executive discretion and establish a new protected class. Again people judge the appropriateness of the exercize of undisputed presidential authority by whether they agree with the results, not whether the authority exists

It is a bad idea to try to put presidential authority under judicial review for abstract, extra-legal concepts like fairness. That is also not traditional

Now there is one extremely well said post! Thank you young man.

 

[BugI02]

Consistency or not, Trump should revoke Hillary’s clearance. Anyone who is “extremely reckless” with their highest clearance should not have it.

I believe he occassionally has enough sense to pick his battles. The behavior of the people in question IMO are giving him a pass to do now what he most certainly would do post November if Republicans retain the house [I am assuming they will retain the senate]

In that case, i hope he hauls them all before the dock [or a special prosecutor appointed without meaningful limit to his/her authority]