Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
thebravecowboy
climber
The Good Places
|
|
|
May 20, 2018 - 04:50pm PT
|
also, it occurs to me that W von Brawny has a thing for HRC. gross.
|
|
Trump
climber
|
|
|
May 20, 2018 - 05:36pm PT
|
Yea old punky Trump, got himself elected POTUS so he could flout the rules in our faces, benefit from his anti-emolument stance, and have everyone thinking and talking about him (even we nonpunky supertopo geniuses) 24/7.
Yea, that must really chap him, because he built his empire on good press. It’s not like he publicly called his own daughter a piece of ass on the Howard Stern show 20 years ago or anything like that, right? His image must really be taking a hit in his eyes.
Or maybe he just likes living in his head more than he would like living in our delusional heads.
|
|
10b4me
Social climber
Lida Junction
|
|
|
May 20, 2018 - 05:36pm PT
|
Talk about a fake. Pud couldn't even get Williamson Rock reopened. Lol
|
|
Trump
climber
|
|
|
May 20, 2018 - 05:47pm PT
|
“that distress normal human beings”
Oh Jesus can we get any more sanctimonious than we already are? The other half of the people who voted for Trump - the 42+% of Americans who approve of Trump - we’ve gone so far off the deep end that we’ve got to think of them as abnormal humans just so we can sleep at night while maintaining our hardline hater attitudes/identities?
Yea I guess we do. That’s just how we normal humans work. On the plus side, normal humans aren’t doing it about my black daughter as much as we used to.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 07:48am PT
|
Still funny; Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Israel, Qatar, Philippines...
The law that prohibits taking anything of value from any foreign national for a campaign
11 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).
(a)Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1)Disbursement has the same meaning as in 11 CFR 300.2(d).
(2)Donation has the same meaning as in 11 CFR 300.2(e).
(3)Foreign national means -
(i) A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. 611(b); or
(ii) An individual who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20); however,
(iii)Foreign national shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States, or who is a national of the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22).
(4)Knowingly means that a person must:
(i) Have actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national;
(ii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is a substantial probability that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national; or
(iii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national, but the person failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry.
(5) For purposes of paragraph (a)(4) of this section, pertinent facts include, but are not limited to:
(i) The contributor or donor uses a foreign passport or passport number for identification purposes;
(ii) The contributor or donor provides a foreign address;
(iii) The contributor or donor makes a contribution or donation by means of a check or other written instrument drawn on a foreign bank or by a wire transfer from a foreign bank; or
(iv) The contributor or donor resides abroad.
(6)Solicit has the same meaning as in 11 CFR 300.2(m).
(7)Safe Harbor. For purposes of paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section, a person shall be deemed to have conducted a reasonable inquiry if he or she seeks and obtains copies of current and valid U.S. passport papers for U.S. citizens who are contributors or donors described in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section. No person may rely on this safe harbor if he or she has actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted, or received is a foreign national.
(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.
(d)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals for office buildings. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party for the purchase or construction of an office building. See 11 CFR 300.10 and 300.35.
(e)Disbursements by foreign nationals for electioneering communications. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make any disbursement for an electioneering communication as defined in 11 CFR 100.29.
(f)Expenditures, independent expenditures, or disbursements by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(g)Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(h)Providing substantial assistance.
(1) No person shall knowingly provide substantial assistance in the solicitation, making, acceptance, or receipt of a contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d), and (g) of this section.
(2) No person shall knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making of an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement prohibited by paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.
(i)Participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities. A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.
(j)Donations by foreign nationals to inaugural committees. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a donation to an inaugural committee, as defined in 11 CFR 104.21(a)(1). No person shall knowingly accept from a foreign national any donation to an inaugural committee.
[ 67 FR 69950, Nov. 19, 2002, as amended at 69 FR 59780, Oct. 6, 2004]
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 07:53am PT
|
Thanks Craig.
You really know how to bring the levity.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 08:24am PT
|
This long, yes, but such a good analysis that it must be read by ALL
This is what comes of conservatism, because it is what ALWAYS comes of conservatism
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/18/1765271/-This-is-what-comes-of-conservatism-because-it-is-ALWAYS-is-what-comes-of-conservatism
What does it mean to do the same thing over and over and expect different outcomes? It means being a conservative. Across history and across cultures, conservatism always winds up in the same place: violence, xenophobia, cultural division, inequality, societal breakdown, oligarchy, kleptocracy, eroding values, subjugation of truth, concentration of power.
Pick a society or culture, conservatism always serves the interests of a few at the expense of the general populace, always betrays the people in favor of the powerful. By being a force to preserve the past, conservatism may sound benign and high-minded — tradition, values, merit. The questions to always be asked, however, are these:
Whose tradition?
What values?
How is merit to be defined?
For the issue of conservatism is always the same: someone is in the position of choosing these things, excluding others — conservatism is, ironically but not, elitist. Conservatism purports to favor the marketplace of ideas, a sort of intellectual capitalism, but as in all forms of capitalism favored by conservatives they try to rig the game. Exclude certain voters, limit rights, control media — because conservatism’s principle is for a powerful few to select certain deserving ideas over undeserving ideas.
As a backward-looking movement, conservatism chooses what tradition, what values, what merit matters. Orwell’s observation that who controls the past controls the future identifies the ultimate conservative notion. MY version of tradition, MY version of values, MY version of merit, claiming universality for values that are strictly sectarian.
That is the fundamental of conservatism — to decide what and who deserve to thrive, and to exclude (or worse) the underserving. Fundamentalist religions determine who believes the right things and determine what the right things are, condemning all alternatives. Fiscal conservatives aren’t interested in limiting spending, only in the power to select where the money is spent, excluding things they don’t like. Social conservatives don’t condemn all perverse behaviors, only the ones they get to choose as perverse.
For conservatives, the principle issue is to choose who is deserving. If some are, then some are not, as simple as that.
Traditional definitions of “right” and “left” make those loaded terms: communism is “leftist”, so Soviet Russia and Red China are said to be leftist. However, those societies were and are fundamentally conservative — the “leftist” communism became the banner waved to preserve the extreme conservatism of the powerful elites. US conservatives like to focus on the communist label, assign it to liberals everywhere, when what they mean is the despotic conservative governments of the USSR, the PRC, DPRK, the old Warsaw Pact, and others. Those are perfect examples of conservatism — the label doesn’t describe the contents.
The real question is always: who gets to choose who is “deserving”. In conservative systems, important questions are “Who is Christian enough?”, “Who is Communist enough?”, “Who is American enough?”...who is in the club and who is not? “Who is wealthy enough?” has become a question in the US, an inversion of the question “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?” — “I am rich, therefore, I am smart and deserving”.
In conservative worlds, the burden of being undeserving is dealt with cruelly, betraying the lies of whatever underlying values are claimed by the deserving. So-called Christians demand cruelty for immigrants, prisoners, poor people, dark people, Muslim people, sick people, disabled people, anyone they can label as “undeserving” of the blessings of liberty, undeserving of the blessings of Christ’s teaching: Blessed are the meek, the poor, said Jesus. “That which you do the the least among us, that also you do to me”, admonished the Son of God.
These anachronisms are called out as hypocrisy, but hypocrisy misses the point. It’s not hypocritical, it’s conservative — that is what conservatism does, it’s what conservatism has always done.
Conservatism rises and always falls. It rises on the populism of inclusion in the club, the power to choose who is deserving and undeserving. It is always corrupt, because it always depends on a rigged game. If a conservative is decrying a rigged game, it is because they either didn’t get to do the rigging or they are playing their subjects’ fears of being victims of getting rigged out of what they think they deserve.
The assertions of conservatism always depend on fallacy:
•Ad hominem — abuse of the opponent.
•Ad baculum — might makes right, the wealthy are the job creators, the backbone of America
•Ad populum — “The American people demand...”, “everyone is saying I deserve the Nobel Prize”
•Ignoratio elenchii — Bill Clinton had an affair. Liberals lack morality.
•Fallacy of accident — what was true in one case proves a generalization. One immigrant in one place is accused of murder, therefore immigrants are murderers and immigration is a threat to society.
•Fallacy of converse accident — putting even limited gun laws in place will lead to all guns being confiscated.
(From reader libre nos)
•Appeal to authority: The Bible says … the Founders … original interpretation … Adam Smith. WTF, even Laffer.
•Appeal to antiquity: “We've always done it this way.” “Surely , if there was something wrong we would have fixed it by now.”
•Circular reasoning: The unrestricted free market is the best economic system, because it works better than any other system in a republic, which is the best political system, because it’s compatible with the unrestricted free market.
•Petitio principii (begging the question, unjustified assumptions): Conservative social values are best, because they’re based on a strong nuclear family with well-defined gender roles.
What can one say about conservatism when it depends entirely on fallacy?
Conservatism always falls the same way — justice prevails. Justice is the force that resets the term deserving to mean everyone. Conservatism always fights justice the same way — with power exercised by the select few. The only variable is the power applied: money, intimidation, physical force.
Be very clear. Donald Trump is a symptom, not the problem. Neo-Nazis are symptoms, not the problem. Vast inequality is a symptom, not the problem. Voting rights suppression is a symptom, not the problem. Violence against immigrants is a symptom, not the problem. Economy-breaking tax breaks are a symptom, not the problem. Putting a US embassy in Jerusalem and getting protesting Palestinians killed are symptoms, not the problem. Denying Medicaid benefits to poor people is a symptom, not the problem. Good Lord, one can go on and on and on for days. The denials of justice are stacking up like a Jenga game. Like Jenga, conservatism always fails. By denying justice, conservatism is fundamentally unstable. It always pulls blocks from the foundation to benefit the top.
America, hopefully, has come to a point in the conservative Jenga game where enough people know it needs to stop and get dismantled into a more just state. I’ve been thinking of conservatism as a futile struggle against time, gravity and equilibrium, but that’s going over the edge, don’t you think?
Democrats, as liberals, need to frame each individual battle in service of fulfilling America’s mission. Standing up for oppressed constituencies are battles. Every battle must to be fought, in the context of winning the war of justice for all. Justice for some but not all is failure in America’s mission. This is a war that has been underway for America’s history.
Liberalism requires confidence. The Founders knew that and debated the degree of confidence that should be placed in the wisdom of the people. The design of the republic reflects their negotiated means to manage extremes in various directions. The breathtaking courage in the design at the time reflected liberal confidence in the people. Many of the shortcomings in the design descend from failures of confidence, even cowardice on the parts of conservative elements, preserving power structures that betrayed justice.
If liberalism requires confidence, it is also true that conservatism requires cowardice. Liberalism trusts all the people to participate and that wisdom will prevail. Conservatism distrusts, fears futures. Liberalism, ironically, says “Trust, but verify”. Conservatism says, “Fear, so control”.
Hell, conservatives even prefer their own sectarian interpretations of their own (religious, financial or political) Bible over the American Constitution out of fear that the Constitution permits too much for too many underserving sorts.
As liberals, as Democrats, the mission is to restore America on a pathway to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
The strategy must be to make sure America knows that ALL those values must be secure for ALL if they are to secure for any. A Union that creeps toward denying voters and setting states against one another is not becoming more perfect. Mistreating sectors of society for racial, religious, sexual orientations, or other reasons is not establishing Justice. Domestic Tranquility is not insured by armed groups prepared to inflict casualties on people. The common defense is not served by betraying allies and provoking killing abroad. The general Welfare is not promoted by denying rights, food, medical care and housing to poorer people while transferring wealth to the wealthy. The Blessings of Liberty are only secured to ourselves AND our Posterity if we have the courage to trust individuals in the expression of their rights and to look forward.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 08:35am PT
|
I am a moderate
That's why the far left hate me as well
To bring DWS up at this point??
Loony
This far left will screw up 2018 just like 2016
vvv
and I've been a moderate since the seventies, and still a Dem
if DWS is trigger for you, then you are a far left loon
and susceptible to any negative propaganda, especially Russian
it's like bringing up Uranium One, or Bill's BJ, a distraction and pointed attack to create division
step away from the kool aid
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 08:38am PT
|
The Brave Cowboy,Lol
Craig , I just want to remind you, I have the same ideology as I had in the seventies,now I am the far left.
You made my point, I was a moderate,now my long entrenched ideas are Radical. It is how far right everything has gone.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 09:44am PT
|
That is the fundamental of conservatism — to decide what and who deserve to thrive, and to exclude (or worse) the underserving. Fundamentalist religions determine who believes the right things and determine what the right things are, condemning all alternatives. Fiscal conservatives aren’t interested in limiting spending, only in the power to select where the money is spent, excluding things they don’t like.
Social conservatives don’t condemn all perverse behaviors, only the ones they get Traditional definitions of “right” and “left” make those loaded terms: communism is “leftist”, so Soviet Russia and Red China are said to be leftist. However, those societies were and are fundamentally conservative — the “leftist” communism became the banner waved to preserve the extreme conservatism of the powerful elites. US conservatives like to focus on the communist label, assign it to liberals everywhere, when what they mean is the despotic conservative governments of the USSR, the PRC, DPRK, the old Warsaw Pact, and others. Those are perfect examples of conservatism — the label doesn’t describe the contents.to choose as perverse.
For conservatives, the principle issue is to choose who is deserving. If some are, then some are not, as simple as that.
The real question is always: who gets to choose who is “deserving”. In conservative systems, important questions are “Who is Christian enough?”, “Who is Communist enough?”, “Who is American enough?”...who is in the club and who is not? “Who is wealthy enough?” has become a question in the US, an inversion of the question “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?” — “I am rich, therefore, I am smart and deserving”.
In conservative worlds, the burden of being undeserving is dealt with cruelly, betraying the lies of whatever underlying values are claimed by the deserving. So-called Christians demand cruelty for immigrants, prisoners, poor people, dark people, Muslim people, sick people, disabled people, anyone they can label as “undeserving” of the blessings of liberty, undeserving of the blessings of Christ’s teaching “Blessed are the meek, the poor, said Jesus. That which you do the the least among us, that also you do to me”, admonished the Son of God.
These anachronisms are called out as hypocrisy, but hypocrisy misses the point. It’s not hypocritical, it’s conservative — that is what conservatism does, it’s what conservatism has always done.
Conservatism rises and always falls. It rises on the populism of inclusion in the club, the power to choose who is deserving and undeserving. It is always corrupt, because it always depends on a rigged game. If a conservative is decrying a rigged game, it is because they either didn’t get to do the rigging or they are playing their subjects’ fears of being victims of getting rigged out of what they think they deserve.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 10:39am PT
|
Not everyone likes Trump. We get it.
But it's important to keep in mind that picking federal judges (or so-called "justices" when they happen to be on the Supreme court) is one of the more important things the prez does, and so far Trump has done a good job at that.
For example, who can doubt that the decision would have been the opposite in this case: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/21/divided-supreme-court-rules-for-businesses-over-workers.html
Consider the wonderful lucidity of Justice Gorsuch in his majority opinion:
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said the contracts are valid under the arbitration law. "As a matter of policy these questions are surely debatable. But as a matter of law the answer is clear," Gorsuch wrote.
Here we had what was really a very simple case, with a "clear" answer as explained by Justice Gorsuch. But the Lib (in)Justices hated the result, so tried to "legislate from the bench" to rewrite the statutes to get the result they wanted. Thankfully they're in the minority (except when jointed by the sometimes treacherous Kennedy) so they just have to cry about it like ol' Ginsburg did!
So, when you're hating on Trump, at least spend a moment to reflect that it's not all bad, and give thanks that he's put such able jurists on the the bench!
|
|
thebravecowboy
climber
The Good Places
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 10:46am PT
|
I'd rather we selected Justices based on their looks.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 11:28am PT
|
Hey, that's a great example of yet another case where trump's working class base voted to f*#k themselves up the a*# as they are the very workers in question.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 11:39am PT
|
That was funny blah blah you try to make a point about con justices being impartial but infuse it with so much ideology and partisanship that you completely undermine you point. Was that a joke?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 11:39am PT
|
But it's important to keep in mind that picking federal judges (or so-called "justices" when they happen to be on the Supreme court) is one of the more important things the prez does, and so far Trump has done a good job at that.
Many of his picks have been grossly, even shockingly unqualified.
Yes, he coughed up gorsuch and a few others. But so would’ve any other right wing president with a right wing congress. It’s not like he had any special insights to offer.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 11:56am PT
|
I was a moderate,now my long entrenched ideas are Radical.
Which of your formerly moderate views are now considered radical?
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 12:00pm PT
|
Universal Health Care for one,if you need more look at any progressive point.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
May 21, 2018 - 12:07pm PT
|
Excellent Question, Edward! I would like to know too.
How far "right" have things gone since the 60s? I'm sure he's talking about abortion on demand? or maybe gay marriage? or teaching grade school kids that gender is now a 'spectrum?' or blue-state property tax rates that have become oppressive? or state and local bureaucracies that now treat citizens as subjects?
Universal health care? It was never a "moderate" position here in the US.
Try harder. Or just admit your premise was hyperbole.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!