Powered by TypePad

« Hillary's Big Night Coming Up | Main | OMG I Blame Trump! »

July 29, 2016

Comments

Old Lurker

"Even white patriarchs..."

I have a very dear friend, now maybe 75, who grew up on the right side of the tracks in Memphis, and whose father was very straight laced and proper. Let's just say my friend was in the front of the line when God was handing out chests to women.

When my friend had all of her assets but was still too young to manage them properly, she recalls bounding down the formal staircase in their house. As they bounced around, her father said simply "Jane, don't let those things hit you in the face."

That was the only such comment he ever made about such matters, and it was sufficient to last a lifetime.

clarice

I stepped down to the first floor for a few minutes and there was a darling fawn nibbling away on my front lawn--good for her--she was trimming the weeds and clovers.

Captain Hate

JMH, I think Tammy Bruce is correct to call Trump the "Triage Candidate" in that he's the first step of many needed to cure the country of the sickness it's currently being drained by. I am sure he will infuriate me at times but not nearly as much as Ryan is currently doing by increasing the social security funding rather than cutting back on the outflow to the undeserving.

peter

Jm hanes @ 1:40 that Geico commercial made me laugh out loud, which doesn't happen too often when the tv is on.

Miss Marple 2

Captain Hate,

Side benefits of a Trump presidency:

a new appreciation for work

a new appreciation for family businesses

actually attractive first lady

humor

people connected with their government again (because I firmly believe Trump will be making short videos all the time and posting them on Facebook)

media exposed as dishonest and corrupt

---------

Those are a few things which mostly do not have to do with policy but will make things more bearable while we struggle to right the ship.

Miss Marple 2

Chrales Evers endorses Trump (Medgar's brother and 1st black mayor in Mississippi):

https://twitter.com/immigrant4trump/status/759197007500107776

Truthbetold5

MM

You think the country needs more reality TV? Really?

boris

I little reality from DC would be a welcome change IMO

Truthbetold5

Boris

Spoiler alert. The WWF is fake.

Momto2

MM - your sister's quote is going in my quote folder.

Since lurking here I now have on my desktop a quote folder, a movie folder, a book folder, and even a wine folder!

The collective experiences and tastes of members here are certainly impressive!

Miss Marple 2

Momto2,

How funny!

More packing to do today but first I must run to the store as we seem to have run out of dog food.

pagar, a bacon, ham and sausage supporter

Meanwhile we have someone telling us we can't cut waste.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/07/29/va-spends-670k-two-art-sculptures-center-blind-vets-yeah-gets-worse-371496

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--Those who think he was terrible for saying he wishes they weren't friends...--

Lives there a parent who hasn't said the same thing? Several times?

henry

Another judge, another ruling for vote fraud in WI.

Clarice, please ramp up the pike production.

clarice

Tell me agin it doesn't matter if Hillary wins.
See what havoc courts can do. How does this square with the Coleman decision?

Lurker Susie

Hillary leads Trump 46/31


http://www.rabaresearch.com/

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Didn't they just void NC's voter ID law too?

Captain Hate

Article V could end judicial tyranny bloodlessly. Hacking off McAwful's hands so that shyster can't sign any more pardons might be more immediately satisfying.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

The Week in Pictures: Unready for Hillary Edition

Pretty funny edition.

clarice

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

In a development closely watched by Hillary as a wining jobs program for our Department of Agriculture;
Venezuela calls for mandatory labor in farm sector.

Beasts of England

I'm a little late catching up (I have a note!) but the overnight discussion and photos were totes hilarious! Thanks to all who made me smile this morning - you know I love y'all... :)

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Was supposed to be "winning" but "wining" works, even a letter short.

Frau Wortkarg in Kalifornien

Clarice - I wonder if Nate's latest reflects any Hillary! convention bounce.

rse

The judges keep striking down voter id as lacking sufficient proof of voter fraud. Then the nightly propagandists excitedly insist there's another judicial ruling that may alter the race for the White House. If the ruling can alter the race, it's the fraudsters shifting the race, not the 'poor' sould unable to identify themselves at the polls.

Talk about the true fiction. These judges are in the Stephen Breyer vein of "whatever furthers the democratic vision in the 21st century." Thoroughly disseminated through all the elite law schools that federal judges tend to be drawn from.

Miss Marple 2

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CooEchaUEAA0-da.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CooFNVcUIAAe3fi.jpg

Seen at Philadelphia Airport bookstore.

Betcha those bookstore employees are Bernie supporters! HA!

Matt

I had a long post about how our military leadership has been emasculated and politicized, but instead I'll just say that Chris Isaak kicked ass last night. Great band, great showman, great tunes.

He did something for a friend of mine's daughter that was out of this world as well. A very nice, classy guy.

Threadkiller

What keeps an Article 5 convention from making things worse?

I don't understand the process enough.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Does the Voting Rights Act or some idiotic SCOTUS precedent require proof of widespread voter fraud to establish reasonable ID requirements?

If so seems an unvirtuous cycle; let's not have any ID requirements so voter fraud is difficult to detect. We can't find much voter fraud so obviously we don't need voter ID.

Beasts of England

I think she'll get a dead cat bounce. Although, according to some, their convention was the bee's knees, so we'll see.

clarice

I don't think so frau--he now puts the odds at H 48%, Trump 51.9%. He started out laughing at Trump even winning the nomination.

Gateway reports that Hillary wanted to schedule the debates on night of NFL football games (get the testosterone out of this race!) and Trump replied fuggataboutit.

Miss Marple 2

My concern about the Article V convention is that it is being pushed by people I don't trust.

Also, what, exactly, would be the point?

1. I don't understand what would be changed for the better in the Constitution, and I think many things could be made worse.

2. It would be heavily influenced by lobbyists and the media.

3. Even if you re-wrote the Constitution, it would get tied up in courts for years.

lyle

Last night's Albert Lee concert comment: Oh. My. God.

The cat is a MONSTER! He's 72 and still blew my mind. Wow. I figured I'd be impressed but his talent, to say nothing of his poise and graciousness are something to behold. Still shaking my head in wondrous disbelief...

Funny sidenote: my wife's bil stopped by our table and announced--can you believe the coincidence?--it was also Geddy Lee's birthday last night. I was a bit slow on the uptake but I asked him, "you don't think the two are actually related, do you?" Why, yes, he did, actually! I gently explained Albert was British and Geddy was...Canadian. 😎

Captain Hate

What keeps an Article 5 convention from making things worse?

It is a convention of representatives of the states which tend to be more conservative than the Feds. Nothing is guaranteed; I've said that all along. I've also said that imo the worst thing that would happen is nothing.

Beasts of England

The Bosis shotgun with the engraved pheasants was as beautiful as any gun I've ever seen... Must. Not. Get. A. Shotgun. Jones.

Threadkiller

Which State representatives?

Beasts of England

That, and Geddy Lee is Gary Weinrib. His very Yiddish-speaking grandmother couldn't pronounce 'Gary'. I have a buddy who sits next to him at Blue Jays games...

Awesome report on Albert - he influenced a lot of great players. Knopfler for one. Glad you enjoyed it!!

lyle

Pro tip: avoid Hayward at Powerline re his citing of Harvey Mansfield's op-ed in the weekend WSJ. Well, if you can't, just skip to the comments quickly. Yer welcome. 😬

clarice

Frau--I double checked--pre convention he had Trump up by 7

clarice

You can go to his site and move a line which shows you day by day his odds.

Captain Hate

2. It would be heavily influenced by lobbyists and the media.

How? Each state would send representatives who are supposed to represent the citizens. The MFM can be excluded from all of it.

The Constitution would have never been ratified without Article V because some of the more prescient founders predicted crap like Marbury vs Madison would subvert the balance of power among the branches or the federal government would start running roughshod over states rights. Or that totalitarians like Saint Delano and Zippy would act like tyrants.

We are currently in a post Constitutional period where no budgets are prepared and law making is done by unelected agencies, judges and executive orders. Having a political cure with a wrecking ball like Trump isn't a real solution imo.

lyle

The venue had somewhat unconventional seating: a party of three (us), a party of two and a party of one in...a booth. I went in first to discover this arrangement and of course introduced myself to the nice couple. She had never heard of AL and her hub was only slightly familiar but both were apparently avid concert-goers. She asked me to describe AL's style/genre. I have to admit, even with my patented loquaciousness, I was a bit stumped: how do you describe some guitarist who literally created his OWN style/genre? I of course mentioned "rockabilly" and his stint with Emmy Lou but in the end it didn't matter. Mr. Lee explained better musically better than any mere words could.

Beasts of England

'patented loquaciousness'. Hahaha!

Momto2

Can I just submit that had we nominated a GOPe candidate they would have caved and scheduled the debates during the NFL games.

I'm sure H. and her minions are researching other dates that will have conflicting events. So glad Trump refuses to fall for their schemes!

lyle

Okay, would you take "glib savior-faire"? 😬

JM Hanes

clarice:

I haven't really been paying attention to Weld, but when I saw him with Johnson on one of the Fox News shows, he struck me as much more articulate and adept than Johnson, who just seems like a default nominee.

It's too bad that the libertarian banner is already taken, but if we can't tame the GOPe, maybe mounting a take-over of the Libertarian party is the way to go. Those millennials who aren't socialists seem to have a pretty strong libertarian bent (which includes their live & let live social attitudes). Political & economic conservative rhetoric has become substantially more libertarian over the past couple of decades, and the whole Tea Party movement was really more libertarian than typically conservative.

I do think that if ever the time/the country might be ripe for birthing a viable third party, this is it. I commented early on that Trump was really running a third party insurgency within the Republican party, rather than outside of it, and in many ways, a hostile take-over may still be 3rd way's best bet. I don't really see Trump as the ultimate leader of a new party, ideologically, but more as someone who clears the way. He may be the vehicle for conservative and anti-establishment discontent, but he, himself, is not conservative. He's actually almost incoherent ideologically, but his campaign has certainly been clarifying, in terms of who is uniparty and who is not, hasn't it?

It will be interesting to see whether the Trump coalition ultimately represents the new cross section of voters so many believe he's picking up. I certainly hope so, because if the folks I know are representative, he has well and truly lost a big chunk of the existing Republican constituency. I don't mean to be a downer, but this is what I am thinking about after conversations with my bellweather, otherwise dependably Republican, voters. Trump is a charismatic populist who repels as many as he attracts, whose followers overlook the excesses which make him unacceptable to others. I'm always being challenged to defend something he has said that sounds really, really bad, even to me. That's the downside of his media-grabbing m.o., and it's a bigger problem than most would care to admit, I think.

All of which is to say that I can love him as the iconoclast we may have needed to shake up the PC political universe we've been living in, but worry that the once in a life time opportunity to fundamentally shift political alignments in this country may slip away without being fully recognized in this personality driven election. When it comes to policy presciptions, Trump is all over the ideological map, and not even internally consistent in many cases. If you take Trump, the personality, out of the equation, what is the core philosophy he represents? What are the principles which unite his coalition and would allow it to survive, even if he loses this election? Or wins it, for that matter.

I'm afraid I'm not saying this very well, but if this movement is actually a movement, not just a fuck you moment, it still needs some sort of over-arching, working manifesto. This means more than simply taking positions on an issue by issue basis, and seeing where you end up, it means a governing philosophy from which such positions can be logically derived, and sold. [Just because "governing philosophy" is a David Brooks' hobbyhorse doesn't mean it wasn't a perfectly serviceable concept before he laid his elitist hands on it!]

We'll have some breathing room if Trump wins this election, but either way, the real work, and the long slog, starts after the election, when we will almost immediately be at a serious disadvantage again vis a vis the establishment -- an establishment which I think our candidate is not unlikely to rejoin.

Jack is Back!

Momto2,

To quote Harvey Mansfield, cited by lyle above: "but he'd be a gentleman, unlike Trump".

Frau Wortkarg in Kalifornien

CH - Article 5 is what Cass Sunstein, Soros and the "Constitution in 2020" have been eagerly preparing for, unless I am horribly mistaken (has happened). The plan is to correct the flaws in the guiding document aka flip it on its head and make government the center, not the people.
John Hinderaker wrote in 2005:

LAST WEEKEND, Yale's chapter of the American Constitutional Society sponsored a conference at Yale Law School titled "The Constitution in 2020." The stated purpose of the conference, at which some of America's best-known liberal law professors appeared, was to work toward a "progressive" consensus as to what the Constitution should provide for by the year 2020, and a strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

The book form came out:
"The Constitution in 2020 is a powerful blueprint for implementing a more progressive vision of constitutional law in the years ahead. Edited by two of America's leading constitutional scholars, the book provides a new framework for addressing the most important constitutional issues of the future in clear, accessible language. Featuring some of America's finest legal minds--Cass Sunstein, Bruce Ackerman, Robert Post, Harold Koh, Larry Kramer, Noah Feldman, Pam Karlan, William Eskridge, Mark Tushnet, Yochai Benkler and Richard Ford, among others--the book tackles a wide range of issues, including the challenge of new technologies, presidential power, international human rights, religious liberty, freedom of speech, voting, reproductive rights, and economic rights. The Constitution in 2020 calls on liberals to articulate their constitutional vision in a way that can command the confidence of ordinary Americans."

As I asked just recently about it, "They" are ready. Are "we"?

Threadkiller

Sorry my question at 12:54 seemed so ignorant.

I am reading about how a convention can start at the State legislatures.

I will be more informed before I post on the topic again.

Miss Marple 2

"representatives who are supposed to represent the citizens"

OK. How would these representatives be chosen?

Also, if you think you could have a Constitutional Convention and exclude the media, you are dreaming. I think Americans would want to know what was going on and the media would gin them up to demand it.

Demonstrations outside the site with all sorts of crazies yelling that their rights are about to be stolen. Others saying that we are losing our government to a coup.

Captain Hate, I just do not see this as something that could be conducted successfully. And I haven't even gotten into people being bribed or threatened.

I know Levin thinks this is the answer, but he is not thinking about the practicality and the unforeseen consequences. JMHO.

Beasts of England

Knopfler, Lee and, 'some other dude' rocking out. Nice Super 400 CES hanging around Mark's neck. :)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b9eBAsnQodk

Momto2

JIB - Yes - our "gentlemen" who lose with class and then vow to fix everything in 4 more years. They retreat to their mansions behind walls and the rest of us should just shut up!

Miss Marple 2

Apparently, Scott Adams is a prophet. This strip if from 1990:

https://i.sli.mg/TPCNAM.jpg

Frau Steingehirn

I just did a quick, lightning quick scour of the internet bowels and found out
1. Soros and his shadow govt. are in favor of an Article 5 convention. Their goals have been stated.

2. Mark Levin is in favor of it. His aims are not the same as Those of Daddy Soros.

3. The Birch Society is against it. They prefer nullification.

4. The Friends of Article 5 are in favor of it and want our money.

Despite the fact that 49 of all 50 state legislatures have submitted 400 (or more) applications (far in excess of the two-thirds requirement) requesting a convention call, Congress has ignored its constitutionally mandated duty. Some Americans fear a convention. This fear, based upon half-truths, myths and outright false hoods, helps to justify the congressional veto of direct constitutional text and denies the people their right to amend the Constitution without government interference or oversight. They say that such a gathering could become a "runaway" convention -- re-writing or over-turning parts or all of the Constitution. They ignore the fact that the Framers also provided a safety mechanism to prevent such a fiasco: all amendments proposed by the convention must be ratified by three-quarters of the states before they become effective. There is no danger that radicals on either side of the political spectrum could bring about such an outcome.

5. Others point out that if the Constitution were upheld, no clean-up in aisle three would be necessary. No need to spell out gun rights--it's right there in the Second Amendment. Etc., etc.

We have seen how a phone, a pen and many executive orders can overturn any law, any day, by any duly elected official.

It's a puzzlement.

Theo

JMH --

Thanks for the long post.

I think the best insight is that Trump is running as a third party candidate while actually being the Republican nominee. I also agree that Trump is all over the map ideologically and very inconsistent and not very well thought out in his politics.

But the core of Trump's argument is that we need to make this country more like it was, as opposed to the Obama/Hillary argument that we need to make it more like Europe (particularly a Europe that openly welcomes immigrants who do not share the culture and the values).

The problem is that the 1980s or the 1950s are not coming back. There is no government policy that is going to bring back high wage/low skill manufacturing jobs. There is no policy that is going to restore America to the aftermath of WWII where we had 80% of the world's GDP. We live in a global economy and we have to make the best of it, not wish it away with walls or tariffs.

I think that the Republican Party will endure as the alternative to the liberal/socialist agenda. It will have factions for sure, with the largely pro immigration WSJ faction in tension with the "build a higher wall" faction.

Republicans united in the past behind candidates who accepted the modern world and the global economy (Bush, McCain, Romney). In this election, the faction of the party that seeks to deny acceptance of those things has found a candidate. Will the party unite behind that candidate? It has done so more than I would have expected, but less than fully.

But in the end, I do not see how these separate factions can do without one another. I think that opposition to the Democrats will unite them and keep them together in an often unhappy marriage.

But you know I could be wrong.

Frau Steingehirn

Clarice - thanks, I just wondered if Ma Clinton's convention bounce, if any, had been factored in.

Nate can play with his readers and his political numbers, too, as I remember from 2012.

I hope more noise is made about the dirty dealings with the Bernie crowd. He may have known it was a fake run but his supporters did not. Their abuse in Philly should be thrown back on crooked Hillary early and often!

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--Pro tip: avoid Hayward at Powerline re his citing of Harvey Mansfield's op-ed in the weekend WSJ. Well, if you can't, just skip to the comments quickly.--

That Simon Watkins guy in the comments seems to be a man of almost infinite wit and sagacity. :)

JM Hanes

Old Lurker:

"That was the only such comment he ever made about such matters, and it was sufficient to last a lifetime."

When it came to appearances, you’d hear nary word one from my father, unless your slip was showing (how dated is that!) or your hair was in your eyes. Even if you begged for his opinion, you were not going to get it.

It was my grandmother who made the comment I’ll never forget. As young teen, after much practice in my sexy new heels, I had perfected my abfab walk. As I passed through our living room, my grandmother looked up from her reading, glanced over the top of her reading glasses, and said, “A little too much hip for parlor, dear.”


henry:

Thanks for the assessment of Nehlen.

Theo

Ignatz --

I assume that you know this fellow extremely well and not just from this one comment.

Beasts of England

I'm not always certain how personalities translate from JOM to real life, lyle. Of the three JOMers I've met, I could have identified them from their posts without an introduction; but I'm totally different in person - I don't say a whole lot. Very much a listener...

Maybe I should adopt that here. ;)

Theo

On the issue of a constitutional convention, I think that the risks outweigh the benefits. For the most part, we like the constitution that we have. We would like some tinkering of course, but wholesale changes are likely to make things worse.

I would also think that TK would be the most ardent opponent imaginable of a Con Con. I would absolutely guarantee that a new constitution would NOT (repeat NOT) limit the presidency to "natural born citizens."

That was a dumb and anti democratic provision in 1789. It would never be included in any rewrite in the 21st Century.

squaredance

The whle problem with CC nad "reform" in general is that it still assumes a "conversation" with the Left. The Left is the problem. They have to be repudiated and removed from power. The Feds downing the Voter ID laws are a case and point. These at alone show complete disregard for not even basic common sense, but the whole notion of America. Their argument is absurd, but since they have powers it stands. They would totally corrupt any CC. It is absurd to think that the current generations, decadent as they are, can create anything as meaningful as our current Constitution. Most certainly, no "professors", Liberia or otherwise, will do so. The creeping communism and elitism has gone to far to imagine otherwise. Just look at the through dishonesty about the DNC this week. If they can lie like that to their own people, let alone the nation, then what do you imagine they will do to the rest of us?

Just the very fact that after all of this Hillary has a shot at office tells us all we need know about the state of the electorate.

Better to reset before the New Deal and completely remove the Left from power. This will not strictly be accomplished "politically", though it will require political leadership. They will not be "argued" out of power, and they will note be merely voted out either.

We have to get it through our heads: they are not merely "the opposition party". They are internal enemies.

Beasts of England

'A little too much hip for parlor, dear.'

Thread winner.

Theo

squaredance --

If they cannot be voted out of power, what exactly do you propose? Shooting them?

lyle

Simon Watkins from New York, New York? 😬

anonamom

I shall repeat that in GUS speak, for emphasis and clarity:


We have to get it through our heads: they are not merely
"the opposition party."

THEY ARE INTERNAL ENEMIES.

squaredance

Well, I have yet to hear Gus say anything that I disagree with in substance.

Theo

anonamom --

I will ask you basically the same question that I asked squaredance.

How would one treat "internal enemies" different than "political opponents?"

Threadkiller

That was a dumb and anti democratic provision in 1789.

Excellent trolling, Theo.

I'll bite.

What group(s) of people are considered ineligible?

Beasts of England

How 'bout Scotty Moore from Nashville. ;)

Theo

TK --

Considered ineligible by whom? The Constitution as written? You can read that as well as anyone else.

Considered ineligible if the Constitution were to be written to conform with my view of what ought to be? I think that the VOTERS should be able to select whomever they choose as chief executive and not be limited by some preconceived formula by long dead (or eventually to be long dead) people limiting their choices.

Why should American voters in this century not be able to choose a 34 year old or someone born in some other country? I say trust the people. I would certainly trust the people more than some mechanical categorical limitations set out in the abstract.

rse

CH-from my bag of goodies just imagine how nicely a constitutional convention marries to the UN's emphasis that the way to get a new world governance system is to emphasize the local. https://www.uclg.org/en/agenda/global-agenda-of-local-and-regional-governments is the startegic toolkit created. Notice the focus on the narrative.

That's where the media and the so-called 'conservative or liberatrian think tanks come in and I say that as someone who reads the materials from both sides and recognizes all the commonalities.

I have also read that constitution in 2020 and was among the first to write about it and explain the implications.

Frau Steingehirn

How about death by ridicule?

That, however, requires a full range of opinion in the press and other media.

Threadkiller

??

It wasn't that difficult a question.

Is your answer that the President does not need to be a citizen at all?

lyle

Scotty's listened to some Merle Travis, I'd reckon.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--I assume that you know this fellow extremely well and not just from this one comment. --

A lifelong acquaintance, though he's been such an ass at times I've considered severing our relationship. :)

lyle

Lol, Ig.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--If they cannot be voted out of power, what exactly do you propose? Shooting them?--

Well, it's not like our country didn't start out recognizing the legitimacy of that method in the course of human events.

Theo

The existing Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen and at least 35 years of age. You did not have to ask me that, you already know it.

My point is simply that if there was a Constitutional Convention that rewrote the Constitution, that provision would almost certainly be deleted.

I think that a newly written Constitution would and should place no limitations -- age or citizenship or anything else -- on who the voters can choose as President.

The Founders did not entirely trust the Electoral College, which they perceived as a real body of people making real decisions, not just a counting of votes in some dull ceremony. They provided some guardrails to keep them from being too off the wall in their selection of a President because they saw the Electoral College as not entirely reflecting the will of the people or accountable to them.

There has not been a real Electoral College in 200 years, not in the way the Founders envisioned it. The EC is not going to run off the rails.

If the people want to elect a 32 year old Norweigan to be president of the United States, they should be allowed to do so in my opinion. That is how democracy works.

Threadkiller

Let's try this in 3 parts:

1)Do you believe that it is dumb and anti-democratic that the office of the president is limited to those 35 and older?

1a) who does that exclude?

2)Do you believe that it is dumb and anti-democratic that the office of the president is limited to those resident in the country for at least 14 years?

2a) who does that exclude?

3)Do you believe that it is dumb and anti-democratic that the office of the president is limited to Natural Born Citizens?

3a) who does that exclude?

Please use the question numbers with the answers.

Beasts of England

Ig@2:07 - Ding, ding, ding!!

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

We're not a democracy which is why we have lasted as long as we have.

Beasts of England

If we're gonna have a non-citizen as president, can we at least have the Swedish bikini cop?

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

-Let's try this in 3 parts:--

NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
3 parts is code for 300,,000.
You must really, really miss DoT, TK.

Theo

Ignatz --

You keep mentioning that this country was started by a violent revolution as though that has some significance to today's political debates.

We live in a democratic republic. Power comes from persuading people to vote for candidates who share our views and policy preferences, not from shooting people.

clarice

JMH--I'm concentrating on the here and now. It seems that a number of Bernie supporters are switching to Trump, and a lot of Dems hate Hillary. Pardon me for saying so but I think some of the "true conservatives" are just fearful of or hate Alpha Males.


Threadkiller

I do.

boris

"not from shooting people"

You're just saying that because you don't have any guns.

Threadkiller

THEO!

Snap out of it!!

You were trolling me first.

You can play with Iggy later.

Threadkiller

Pardon me for saying so but I think some of the "true conservatives" are just fearful of or hate Alpha Males.

An excellent summary of my well spent time at JoM.

;-)

boris

Hey, as has been noted before, it wouldn't be the first time some Republicans had to shoot a lot of dimorats to save the country.

Theo

1)Do you believe that it is dumb and anti-democratic that the office of the president is limited to those 35 and older?

ANSWER: Yes

1a) who does that exclude?

I don't understand the question. The provision excludes people under the age of 35. I would not exclude anyone based on age.

2)Do you believe that it is dumb and anti-democratic that the office of the president is limited to those resident in the country for at least 14 years?

ANSWER: Yes

2a) who does that exclude?

ANSWER: See answer to 1a)

3)Do you believe that it is dumb and anti-democratic that the office of the president is limited to Natural Born Citizens?

ANSWER: Yes

3a) who does that exclude?

Answer: See answer to 1a)

Beasts of England

I notice that King George wasn't persuaded by the ideal rhetoric of the Declaration. I notice that the left is not persuaded by the ideal formation of the Constitution. Then shit happens.

Frau Steingehirn

rse, I checked out the "Partners" at the UCLG link you supplied. Nothing new there.

We trusted the people chosen to help establish new voting districts. Our local representative was really good with consensus. We ended up losing David Dreier's district (it was chopped up) and now it's all Democrats from LA County through San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The people "chosen" cut some mighty strange district boundaries but the process was good.

Open Society coming soon. It's all about local decision making. The national-level decision making is for someone else.

squaredance

"some of the "true conservatives" are just fearful of or hate Alpha Males."

Clarice is on to something here, and those would be ostensible "male" among the "true conservatives" that feel this way too.

Beyond that, they really cannot stand the notion of anyone actually doing something--it disrupts their "musings" and forces them into a position where tehy might discover that a good many really do not care at all what they "think".

Theo

boris --

Good point. If we did start shooting one another in this country, I would not fare very well. I don't have a gun and am almost certainly a lousy shot if I managed to get one.

Threadkiller

For 1a you say people under 35 are excluded.

That is correct.

For 2a I think you are saying people who haven't resided here for 14 years.

If so, that is correct.

Now 3a gets a little tricky. Besides copping out and saying "it excludes non-NBCs," can you actually name some of these non-NBC groups?

Theo

New thread!

I need to run for a bit TK. Will play later.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Hey! HCOAB was a russkie IIRC.
Reconsidering this Trump thing;

Captain Hate

I won't badger anybody about Article V any more today, especially after Frau's and rse's feedback. Like I've consistently said, it isn't risk free.

I have to study JMH's long comment because she articulated some of the things I was thinking of last night. For now I think it's time for Cruz to put his big boy pants on and have a clear the air conversation with Trump as step one in nudging him to conservative positions. It will in no way be 100% successful but we've been told to make do with a lot less in the past. And it's definitely to Cruz's benefit to be considered something other than a whiny quixotic loser.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame