Trump 2024 — The second term

[BugI02]

They never learn from living in the world they seek to create. They create it and migrate to the next place to try again.

The best course of action is the same emotional manipulation used to demonize us for the past few decades being used against them. It's not hard to make a label stick with the media and institutions pushing it. Once they're dehumanized to the point they have done to us, I think the lesson will start settling in.

The flaw in your logic, as far as I can see is:

Trump gets elected --->[here a miracle happens and we retake control of the media, academia and the institutions]---> we make them live in the world they seek to create


You know elections don't work this way, yes? If we can't get him solid, useful majorities in both chambers - including a healthy portion of America First constitutionalist hard headed players - he can't really do much of anything and they'll run the same bull**** accusations playbook if they can. We need Schedule F or its equivalent to keep them too concerned about their own jobs to make very much trouble, and the president needs to set broad policy, not get bogged down in personnel issues. He needs to have a hit man whose sole portfolio is to take the fight to the bastards. Not sure whether you want the VP to take that on or someone else. It would be tough to use the AG or the head of the FBI because they will need to concentrate on cleaning their own houses

 

[BugI02]

Really? It looks to me like Jews are getting eyes wide open by their woke comrades now saying they should die, even though they’re not practicing Jews.

What I'm seeing in print and when I talk to them, though, is they can't make the jump to the 'stop voting for the people who want you dead' bit of realism

So many of them say they can't or won't vote republican, its just sad

They seem infected by the same urge to self-immolation as the EU. The spin is getting flatter and the ground is coming up but no one wants to grab the controls

 

[BugI02]

I presumed we’d be operating in the world that is, not worlds past.

The point I was making is ability and intelligence,, like cream, tends to rise to the top without the need for an Ivy League education. It used to be that elite schools exposed capable but immature minds to some of the best teachers and provided some of the best facilities for research. This is no longer the case

I could see the use, in better days, of taking a stand-out in some important field, after he demonstrated exceptional ability, and offering him the chance to do a PhD at MIT or CalTech or Stanford or some such. I really don't see the Harvards or the Columbia etc seeking to predict the best and brightest out of high school and co-opt them as having been very effective. Some of the most successful people in tech, currently, 'went to' Harvard but dropped out in order to have success likely because they how narrow and hidebound the 'elite' viewpoint actually was

My complaint is with credentialism and the fact that the more corrupt the institution gets the less those credentials mean. I don't pick a surgeon based on where he went to medschool, I pick him based on an established track record of performing the operation I'm contemplating many times with a high percentage of successful outcomes - makes no difference me if he went to Notre Dame or Case

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Insurrection...

Man the word "sheep" in your username is surely fitting if you truly believe that was an "insurrection"

Who knew that "preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States" would look a whole lot like trying to steal an election by discarding validly certified state electors.

Seriously... "Pence gavels Trump re-elected" is the country you want?

 

[BugI02]

Oh, and for the hard-of-thinking, bringing up critical theory isn't a rabbit hole or not germane to the discussion

The very credential factories that you want to use to inform your choice of who deserves to be considered scholarly or capable are in fact the breeding grounds for the type of 'elite' thought that birthed that nightmare. If what comes out of elite law schools you think is cogent legal theory or in any way passes constitutional muster we have no common referents

 

[jamil]

Boebert, a Trump favorite, is switching districts to win and instantly making her district Lean R again. Goes back to the Trump train being something like a short bus.

I mean. They do mail in ballots all over the state. Democrats can direct the blue-hair ballot harvesting bimbos anywhere.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Just a reminder what Trump wanted Pence to do that day... there was no sending anything back to the states, it was Pence declaring Trump re-elected on Jan 6th.

 

[Ingomike]

Boebert, a Trump favorite, is switching districts to win and instantly making her district Lean R again. Goes back to the Trump train being something like a short bus.

Some places are not conservative enough to have a conservative representative. You sound like someone whose definition of winning is a RINO in every seat. That is losing to me and most of us here…

 

[jamil]

The point I was making is ability and intelligence,, like cream, tends to rise to the top without the need for an Ivy League education.

Well, of course. I think I mentioned those outliers before. Elon Musk is another example. Where are those guys on the bell curve?

But that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand which stemmed from a challenge to the idea that Eastman was any kind of scholar. Maybe he's a genious. Maybe he scored very high on his LSATS. Maybe he graduated with highest honors. Then maybe he took a job at a nobody school, and did nothing noteworthy until Rudy dug him up.

It used to be that elite schools exposed capable but immature minds to some of the best teachers and provided some of the best facilities for research. This is no longer the case

No argument there. I don't think the need for credentials will go away. Employers want to know that they're getting what they're paying for. Consumers want to know that their doctors are competent.

I think I'd like to see the institutional model of education wither away and instead have a system of certifications, which provide the credentials. Separate the business of teaching the skills from the credentials. You obtain the skills however you can. And then you get certified through rigorous testing for the skills you've learned.

I could see the use, in better days, of taking a stand-out in some important field, after he demonstrated exceptional ability, and offering him the chance to do a PhD at MIT or CalTech or Stanford or some such. I really don't see the Harvards or the Columbia etc seeking to predict the best and brightest out of high school and co-opt them as having been very effective. Some of the most successful people in tech, currently, 'went to' Harvard but dropped out in order to have success likely because they how narrow and hidebound the 'elite' viewpoint actually was

My complaint is with credentialism and the fact that the more corrupt the institution gets the less those credentials mean. I don't pick a surgeon based on where he went to medschool, I pick him based on an established track record of performing the operation I'm contemplating many times with a high percentage of successful outcomes - makes no difference me if he went to Notre Dame or Case

Sometimes credentials are necessary. If you're presenting yourself as an expert, credentials matter. But I think we both agree that credentials from a university doesn't guarantee much about the individual student. Is a Harvard Law student who graduates at the bottom of his class any better than a UofL School of Law student who graduated at the top? Doubtful. But the Harvard grad might land a better first job.

 

[foszoe]

Some places are not conservative enough to have a conservative representative. You sound like someone whose definition of winning is a RINO in every seat. That is losing to me and most of us here…

Is a RINO a compromise on the way to winning or is it losing? If we are talking the spectrum of winning vs losing. I would think a democrat would be losing.

 

[jamil]

Incorrect. I never postulated you had some device that would allow you to view things in a neutral manner.

That's just an absurd claim that no one's made.

I said you presented your viewpoint as carefully considered and neutral,

Prove it.

that if it were true you wouldn't need to sell it so hard and that you should ask yourself your famous question more often

Sell it hard. I present my opinions. You present yours. Now, if you're conflating "selling hard" with verbosity, I'm sorry to dissapoint but that has more to do with struggles with brevity.

All of us think we're right in what we believe, not all of us try to portray that as some evidence of being above the pull of politics or bias.

Uh. I've said several times I'm not unbiased. I have criticized Trump and I have praised Trump and it's not because I have a scale somewhere and carefully measure out the criticism to praise ratio. The thing is what determines criticism or praise. He brags about saving millions of lives by approving the fast-tracking of mrna technology, I'll criticize that every time.

When he does something right, like the booming economy prior to the pandemic, I'll praise that every time. You tend to trot out the "carefully considered" bales of straw after I've criticized him for something.

I, for one, would welcome it if you acquired a device to let you see things with a truly neutral eye - provided you could be convinced to make use of it

Unfortunately, I suspect such a device is on a par with the magic jewel necessary to read the golden pages of the Mormon holy books - probably not available

I, for one, would welcome it if you'd just burn all your straw at once. Just pile it up and burn it. Maybe wait until better weather. Then we could sit on lawn chairs by the fire, for weeks and weeks, and roast marshmallows, and argue about how best to yell at clouds.

 

[jamil]

Some places are not conservative enough to have a conservative representative. You sound like someone whose definition of winning is a RINO in every seat. That is losing to me and most of us here…

She's in district 3. The map shows it as obviously the largest district. It's huge. It includes Aspen, which is one of the few progressive areas in her district. But the district should be solid red other than that. The problem? She's a dingbat. And she has made that apparent to voters in her district. It would be better for America-first Republicans to primary her and get rid of her. But they can't. Because she's in the club.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Some places are not conservative enough to have a conservative representative. You sound like someone whose definition of winning is a RINO in every seat. That is losing to me and most of us here…

Some of you would rather have a Democrat speaker than a Republican, I get it. You’re clearly better served by Jeffries than Johnson. That’s what you’re saying.

This district is conservative enough to go back to lean R the moment she moved out.

 

[BugI02]

But that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand which stemmed from a challenge to the idea that Eastman was any kind of scholar. Maybe he's a genious. Maybe he scored very high on his LSATS. Maybe he graduated with highest honors. Then maybe he took a job at a nobody school, and did nothing noteworthy until Rudy dug him up.

Still off point. I'm not arguing that he is a great constitutional scholar. I've been quite clear that a record of accomplishments is what should delineate that. What I'm arguing is that merely by receiving the stamp of approval of one of the marxist factories that elite schools have become a person does not suddenly become some kind of great scholar. That is the essence of credentialism, that someone is to accorded accolades merely for attending what used to be a great institution

Do you think Obama is a great constitutional or legal scholar? He attended Harvard Law and headed the Harvard Law Review though he never authored one piece that appeared within it. No one quite knows how he got accepted at Columbia prior to that, it certainly wasn't because of his grades, which were on a par with Biden's. How many 'great men' manufactured out of whole cloth do you want to see? How many members of congress have JDs from prestigious schools and then how many of them are great men, great thinkers whose opinion on the law will make a difference in how it is interpreted in the future? Despite all those prestigious pieces of paper, how many sitting congressmen are on a par with the founding fathers when it comes to erudition, whose thoughts on liberty or freedom will be making a diffrence 100 years from now?

Credentialism is lethal to academic rigor, its Eaton instead of Cambridge, a merit badge you win often by having strings pulled in your behalf by powerful players with an agenda

Ketanji Brown Jackson and Anton Scalia are both graduates of Harvard Law. Scalia went to Georgetown for undergrad, Jackson is a pure Harvard product also doing her undergrad at Harvard. Do you think Jackson should be held in the same league as Scalia in terms of regard as a jurist? Because that seems to be what you are arguing for

 

[KG1]

Moving on up.

Trump ballot ban appealed to US Supreme Court by Colorado Republican Party

The move is the potential first step to a showdown at the nation’s highest court over the meaning of a 155-year-old constitutional provision that bans those who “engaged in insurrection” from office.

apnews.com

 

[jamil]

Some of you would rather have a Democrat speaker than a Republican, I get it. You’re clearly better served by Jeffries than Johnson. That’s what you’re saying.

You are saying he said things he didn’t say. Stop it. People mocked Kathy Newman for doing that.

You are taking an outcome you think will happen as a result of the actions he supports and the making the illogical leap that he must support that outcome. It’s a false equivalency.

This district is conservative enough to go back to lean R the moment she moved out.

Yes. The presumption she made is that the district she wants to represent is any more excited than the one she’s in to be represented by a dingbat.

Can the CO third district not find a decent America-first candidate that’s not a dingbat with big ****? Far be it from me to say they can’t have a representative with big ****. But they shouldn’t prioritize that over a high quality, sensible America-first conservative.

 

[KG1]

What I'm seeing in print and when I talk to them, though, is they can't make the jump to the 'stop voting for the people who want you dead' bit of realism

So many of them say they can't or won't vote republican, its just sad

They seem infected by the same urge to self-immolation as the EU. The spin is getting flatter and the ground is coming up but no one wants to grab the controls

 

[KG1]

My complaint is with credentialism and the fact that the more corrupt the institution gets the less those credentials mean. I don't pick a surgeon based on where he went to medschool, I pick him based on an established track record of performing the operation I'm contemplating many times with a high percentage of successful outcomes - makes no difference me if he went to Notre Dame or Case

Is this why they picked Eastman to present as their most "preeminent constitutional scholar in the US" because he has an "established track record of success in performing the operation that they were contemplating many times with a high percentage of success?" or was it the best they could get who would go along with their scheme? One in which he himself wasn't confident in the untested legal theory that Pence had the constitutional authority to stop the official State certified elector count before Congress, and acknowledged according to Glen Jacobs (Pence's legal counsel) that the strategy would most likely lose 9-0 in front of SCOTUS but went along with the plan anyway.

 

[KLB]

Looks like Eastman was found talking on Fox about the Russia nonsense before the election.

The Lawyer Behind the Memo on How Trump Could Stay in Office (Published 2021)

John Eastman was a little-known but respected conservative lawyer. Then he became influential with Donald Trump — and counseled him on how to retain power after losing the election.

www.nytimes.com

 

[jamil]

Still off point. I'm not arguing that he is a great constitutional scholar. I've been quite clear that a record of accomplishments is what should delineate that. What I'm arguing is that merely by receiving the stamp of approval of one of the marxist factories that elite schools have become a person does not suddenly become some kind of great scholar. That is the essence of credentialism, that someone is to accorded accolades merely for attending what used to be a great institution

Do you think Obama is a great constitutional or legal scholar? He attended Harvard Law and headed the Harvard Law Review though he never authored one piece that appeared within it. No one quite knows how he got accepted at Columbia prior to that, it certainly wasn't because of his grades, which were on a par with Biden's. How many 'great men' manufactured out of whole cloth do you want to see? How many members of congress have JDs from prestigious schools and then how many of them are great men, great thinkers whose opinion on the law will make a difference in how it is interpreted in the future? Despite all those prestigious pieces of paper, how many sitting congressmen are on a par with the founding fathers when it comes to erudition, whose thoughts on liberty or freedom will be making a diffrence 100 years from now?

Credentialism is lethal to academic rigor, its Eaton instead of Cambridge, a merit badge you win often by having strings pulled in your behalf by powerful players with an agenda

Ketanji Brown Jackson and Anton Scalia are both graduates of Harvard Law. Scalia went to Georgetown for undergrad, Jackson is a pure Harvard product also doing her undergrad at Harvard. Do you think Jackson should be held in the same league as Scalia in terms of regard as a jurist? Because that seems to be what you are arguing for

I think you need to parse the conversation a bit more if you think this is what I'm arguing for. We both agree that "credentialism" is not good. You don't have to convince me on that. I can add plenty to the examples of how credentialism is a scam.

My contention is that credentialism is irrelevant to the conversation about Eastman, because no one has done that. But, I think credentialism is an interesting side-topic to get into.

It's not out of "credentialism" that people are questioning Eastman's preeminence as an election law scholar. It's that he lacks bonafides, the credentials that demonstrate his preeminence. Where he went to school isn't even a part of that conversation.

Credentials are more than just where one went to school. It's also their body of work. When you listen to keynote speakers, they're typicaly introduced by citing their credentials. That includes education, academic accomplishments, contributions to their field, successes, and the like. They do this so that the audience can decide if that person is qualified to speak on that topic with credibility or not.

That's not "credentialism". Credentialism is a scam to provide superficial information to con people into assuming the person is competent. That's basically what Rudy did by introducing Eastman as a preeminant scholar, without laying out all the reasons why people should think so.