Donald Trump

[Wolf DeVoon]

3 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

The Declaration of Independence is the interface that actively connects individual rights to the constitution.

Uh, no, for several reasons. The Declaration proclaimed that "these United Colonies are and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States (plural)" and did not establish a national government. The States adopted Articles of Confederation, effectively a treaty, in which any State effectively had a veto, because they were independent sovereign states. It is not mysterious why delegates met in Annapolis in 1786 and in Philadelphia a year later to consider amendments to the Articles of Confederation (that's how it was conceived). State borders were ill-defined and some of them overlapped in Crown charters. States were taxing the products of other States (New Jersey likened to a cask tapped at both ends by New York and Pennsylvania import duties). Continental IOUs issued by Congress were worthless, and many States had huge war debts. Some States were friendly to England, others to France, and it threatened to split the States into separate confederacies.

The U.S. Constitution did not echo or promote individual rights philosophy expressed in The Declaration. It was a charter of power. You can argue that the Bill of Rights contained some individual rights language, but please consider that Madison opposed those amendments, because it killed the notion of enumerated powers that limited what the national government could do. No U.S. Supreme Court decision has ever been based on The Declaration. The Constitution permitted slavery to continue until the Civil War, after which nothing in constitutional construction remained of common law, which was the implicit touchstone that guided how The Framers understood what they agreed to in ratifying The Constitution in 1790.

What we have today is tyranny, unless the Supreme Court rules that the 14th Amendment trumps everything else.

[Wolf DeVoon]

3 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

They will take their faulty understandings and with a heart full of goodwill, pull the lever for Hillary.

Naw, don't be silly. A vote for Hillary is venal and they know it, not a micron of goodwill among the Free Shit Army.

[Wolf DeVoon]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Probably oil.

The Koch brothers are one of the smallest oil producers, hardly a blip in the global energy sector. Most of their wealth is ranching, fertilizers, asphalt, forestry, engineering, and small scale pipelines regulated by state law, Federal law, and lots of competitive pressure. People dislike the fact that Koch Industries is privately held.

[SteveWolfer]

3 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

You can argue that the Bill of Rights contained some individual rights language, but please consider that Madison opposed those amendments, because it killed the notion of enumerated powers that limited what the national government could do.

Your exposition of the revolutionary history is good.  But I'd argue that the battle between those who, like Madison, believed that the bill of rights might be a confusion and might make it seem like the federal government could do anything unless the bill of rights were limiting, and those in opposition to that, most of whom totally agreed with the idea of a federal government that could only do what was enumerated, but took a belt and suspenders approach.  They said, in effect, we understand about the enumerated powers, but we don't trust that they key rights wouldn't be violated anyway.

What I'm saying is that both sides to this argument, for the most part, were on the side of the constitution protecting rights and only in disagreement as to which would prove the most effective.  The arguments at the ratifying conventions seemed to show that.

9 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

The U.S. Constitution did not echo or promote individual rights philosophy expressed in The Declaration. It was a charter of power.

True... but only in explicit terms.  It has always been understood that the declaration of independence announced our severance from Great Britain for the purpose of securing our rights.  And it has always been understood that, first the alliance of the now independent states, and then the federal government under the constitution were intended as the means of securing those rights by having the power that they would not have had as independent nations.  The main idea of the constitution and the greatest constant in the writings of the founding fathers is to limit government power and the only purpose of that is to protect individual rights.

14 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

What we have today is tyranny, unless the Supreme Court rules that the 14th Amendment trumps everything else.

What we have today is many generations of bad Supreme Court decisions, and the shift to where precedent (bad decisions) take precedence over what the DOI, the constitution itself, and the founding fathers wrote.  Ginsberg wants to use language from some foreign constitutions to make decisions - Really!

It is only partly tyranny... but clearly getting bad.

[SteveWolfer]

11 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Naw, don't be silly. A vote for Hillary is venal and they know it, not a micron of goodwill among the Free Shit Army.

That's a kind of all or nothing logic that I don't think applies.  There are well-to-do people who are going to vote for Hillary and do so out of bad understandings on the environment, regulations, fear of big business, etc.  Not to line their own pockets.

[SteveWolfer]

4 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

People dislike the fact that Koch Industries is privately held.

And progressives hate them because they are capitalists, because they have money and don't feel guilty, and who are active in politics and don't have positions that are easy to ridicule.

[Brant Gaede]

52 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Your exposition of the revolutionary history is good.  But I'd argue that the battle between those who, like Madison, believed that the bill of rights might be a confusion and might make it seem like the federal government could do anything unless the bill of rights were limiting, and those in opposition to that, most of whom totally agreed with the idea of a federal government that could only do what was enumerated, but took a belt and suspenders approach.  They said, in effect, we understand about the enumerated powers, but we don't trust that they key rights wouldn't be violated anyway.

What I'm saying is that both sides to this argument, for the most part, were on the side of the constitution protecting rights and only in disagreement as to which would prove the most effective.  The arguments at the ratifying conventions seemed to show that.

True... but only in explicit terms.  It has always been understood that the declaration of independence announced our severance from Great Britain for the purpose of securing our rights.  And it has always been understood that, first the alliance of the now independent states, and then the federal government under the constitution were intended as the means of securing those rights by having the power that they would not have had as independent nations.  The main idea of the constitution and the greatest constant in the writings of the founding fathers is to limit government power and the only purpose of that is to protect individual rights.

What we have today is many generations of bad Supreme Court decisions, and the shift to where precedent (bad decisions) take precedence over what the DOI, the constitution itself, and the founding fathers wrote.  Ginsberg wants to use language from some foreign constitutions to make decisions - Really!

It is only partly tyranny... but clearly getting bad.

My grandfather, Irving Brant, wrote a six-volume biography of James Madison plus a one-volume condensation. He also wrote, The Bill of Rights, Its Origin and Meaning (1965). I especially recommend the last.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

I see absolutely no evidence that either of the Koch bothers is in favor of global governance.

Steve,

What do you know about their companies?

Michael

[SteveWolfer]

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

What do you know about their companies?

Very little.

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

That's a kind of all or nothing logic that I don't think applies.  There are well-to-do people who are going to vote for Hillary and do so out of bad understandings on the environment, regulations, fear of big business, etc.  Not to line their own pockets.

160 million get government checks + 20 million federal, state, local government employees and contractors = landslide for Hillary

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

Ya' think there might be some eminent domain issues if someone dug in the right places regarding the Koch Pipeline? It's only 4,000 miles long...

 

And that's just one little thing to look at among gobs of things.

I don't spend my time trying to gotcha the Koch brothers and, frankly, don't want to spend a lot of time doing it. I think they are excellent businessmen and entrepreneurs. I like that they fund conservative politicians and think tanks. I just don't expect them to practice their ideology except loosely when push comes to shove regarding their companies. I've read too much in the news over time.

Also, conservative/libertarian recipients of their largesse seem to be reluctant to pursue any such inconsistencies, so low profile it is...

The Koch brothers are not evil. But to pretend they are free market saints whereas Trump is the devil is naive. Facts tend to be stubborn once you look at them.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

10 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

160 million get government checks + 20 million federal, state, local government employees and contractors = landslide for Hillary

Non sequitur. The Republicans dish out the loot too.

--Brant

[SteveWolfer]

59 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The Bill of Rights, Its Origin and Meaning

Thanks, I've put it on my list.  I suspect it is a book I'll enjoy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Alex Jones has been going nuts for a few months over a Russian issue and it has been getting no traction at all in the mainstream. Incredibly, Alex is against what he sees as an American provocation of Russia. And Alex is a HUGE communism hater.

I admit I haven't posted anything so far because I don't know that much about it. As best I can understand, NATO (meaning the USA mostly) is now putting up an anti-missile defense system along the Russian border in Europe that could be jiggered overnight into missiles that carry nuclear payloads, and they can reach key Russian cities. And, according to what little I have followed, Putin has been going nuts trying to get American politicians to reverse this or the American press to say something. He says he cannot permit this to go on, he does not want to trigger a war, but he will defend Russia. Including with war if necessary.

Note, the issue is not surrender to Russia. It's to not provoke Russia by setting up a heavy attack structure right next door.

Finally this appeared on CNN:

Maybe more will be forthcoming. And that being the case, here is the latest video by Jones. 

Granted, Paul Craig Roberts can get loopy at times and this is the first time I've seen the Alex standin who interviewed him, Darrin McBreen (normally Alex does the interviewing), but I've seen enough to know something real is involved that should be discussed in the press.

Knowing President Obama's favorite tactic in just about everything is stealth, misdirection and betrayal, I can easily see him promoting this on purpose. Or, sheer foreign affairs incompetence, which is more than plausible. Or he might not be aware of the implications at all. In any of these cases, it's not good.

Trump wants to stop the escalation. That's why he's not bashing Putin right now. This is one thing I am sure he will fix post haste once he is sworn in. 

Michael

[SteveWolfer]

35 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

160 million get government checks + 20 million federal, state, local government employees and contractors = landslide for Hillary

Yeah, it ain't good.  But subtract out the social security recipients that worked for an entire lifetime.  Also subtract out those who receive Medicare as opposed to SSI or Medicaid.  Subtract out all of the federal, state, and local employees that are doing work that is appropriate (law enforcement and military for example).  Subtract them out, since they aren't all voting because they've been bought.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And for those who like these things, keep your popcorn handy.

Michael

[SteveWolfer]

38 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't spend my time trying to gotcha the Koch brothers and, frankly, don't want to spend a lot of time doing it. I think they are excellent businessmen and entrepreneurs. I like that they fund conservative politicians and think tanks. I just don't expect them to practice their ideology except loosely when push comes to shove regarding their companies. I've read too much in the news over time.

I'm not getting into bed with the Koch brothers but it is annoying enough to see them attacked from the left.  To see people who are anti-Hillary, GOP, or libertarian slur them is too much.

If someone who, just to make up an example, builds schools and lots of that money is from the government and that person has a choice to vote on a state referendum that make all schools private, that is where they have integrity, if they are libertarians, as opposed to having sold their political souls.

I think the Koch brothers have integrity.  I don't know them well, but I'm definitely fed up with our world is filling up with people throwing out accusations that have no more substance than, "Hey,  they might be just like others who are cronies."  That means and end to all principles in passing judgment.

45 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But to pretend they are free market saints whereas Trump is the devil is naive. Facts tend to be stubborn once you look at them.

Some hyperbole in that.  Angels?  Devil?  That is kind of like using some hyperbole to set up a straw man (me, naïve?) I'm just saying that we see nothing going on about them but their support which mostly aligns with libertarian principles and, unlike Donald, they aren't running for president, and I'm not the one making comparisons.

[SteveWolfer]

8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And for those who like these things,

I'm liking Assange more and more.

[SteveWolfer]

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump wants to stop the escalation. That's why he's not bashing Putin right now. This is one thing I am sure he will fix post haste once he is sworn in. 

Putin is a bully and there is never going to be a way to tell when he is bristling to stop others from stopping him, versus when he really feels threatened.  If he is just pushing, and bullying and keeping his eye on re-establishing the old USSR borders the question is how to deter him, but at the same time, not get into a relationship that invokes a new arms race.  Obama is an appeaser.  Clinton is untrustworthy, corrupt, incompetent and no one knows which way she'd break.  She could even get too militaristic to prove that despite wearing pants suits that she has balls.  NATO could be encourage to put troops instead of upgradable missiles in place.  Or use the kind of missile defense system that can't be upgrade to use nukes.  That pushes back in a way that doesn't require taking his threats seriously (unless he a totally loose cannon and if he is, might as well deal with now then later).  The best long term position is to pressure the oligarchs with massive harm to their financial interests if Putin makes serious threats against NATO countries.  (Or we can get out of NATO which tells Putin he can do what he wants with the Baltic states and tells NATO countries to defend themselves.)  With bad actors on stage there are no good answers.

[Wolf DeVoon]

21 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

But subtract out the social security recipients that worked for an entire lifetime.  Also subtract out those who receive Medicare

Beneficiaries paid in only a fraction compared to what they receive, and what they paid in was spent long ago. There is no lock box, no savings set aside to pay Social Security or Medicare benefits. A big fat zero.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

42 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

To see people who are anti-Hillary, GOP, or libertarian slur them is too much.

Steve,

Who's slurring them?

Try this. Type in the following line to Google (including the quotes):

"Koch pipeline" "eminent domain"

Then start reading. You have to do a little more reading than normal, I admit, but start noticing what the entities they are affiliated with have been doing, say, to get the easements ... Or that trick of threatening eminent domain to a land-owner with the legal guns locked and loaded (including government in the background), but then settling privately, then telling everyone about their free-market way of doing things.

The dirt doesn't directly touch the hands of the Kochs (maybe I will find some if I keep digging and I haven't dug very much). But they do get benefits of dirt that others do miraculously at the very time they need it.

That's not a slur. That's called research.

Michael

 

EDIT: I do agree that the kind of crap people like Harry Reid say about the Koch brothers is pure crap.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

38 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

I'm liking Assange more and more.

Steve,

You and me, both.

I hope Trump calls the dogs off him once sworn in.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

58 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Thanks, I've put it on my list.  I suspect it is a book I'll enjoy.

Buy a used hard cover through Amazon.

--Brant

[SteveWolfer]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Globalists (one of the worst forms of crony capitalists)...

You asked "Who's slurring them?"

Globalist - cronies - is a slur, and there was the twisted report about Charles Koch supporting Hillary.

[Brant Gaede]

29 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Beneficiaries paid in only a fraction compared to what they receive, and what they paid in was spent long ago. There is no lock box, no savings set aside to pay Social Security or Medicare benefits. A big fat zero.

Practically speaking it doesn't matter. The obligations of the Federal Government will be met with the printing press. No other way. Soon the taxes won't cover them.

--Brant