Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[Karl Henning]

Seems like I did it, yes. Not the first time, and certainly not the last. But then again, I have never ever claimed to be a good, let alone perfect, Christian. And in all earnest, every single time I quoted Jesus on casting the first stone I was drunk, which is a sin in itself, albeit a minor one. I hope and trust you'll forgive this my trespassing.   

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.

I hope you will pardon my ribbing.  I have no quarrel with you.

And in further good news:  chances are slim-to-nonexistent that Todd will accuse you of moral preening.  That distinction is reserved for liberal snowflakes 

[Florestan]

He was a state politician during the Bush years, so his actions and words on foreign policy meant nothing, but if memory serves, he opposed the Iraq War.  On Obama's Syria policy he opposed it before he supported it, or at least didn't oppose it as much.

Thanks. A middle-of-the-road politician?

[Todd]

Thanks. A middle-of-the-road politician?

A more or less conventional liberal (in the American sense) Democrat.  As such, he has to fence straddle from time to time.

[Karl Henning]

Thanks. A middle-of-the-road politician?

It may be trending away from quite what you meant . . . but a chap here at the office was only this morning discussing how part of the process of thugocracies emerging (and with populist approval) from decayed democracies, is extreme political polarization.

Quite likely, if American democratic norms and respect for the law and Constitution are to be restored, part of the answer is going to be:  moderate politicians.

Whether this is the same as middle-of-the-road politicians, I leave to others to solve.

[BasilValentine]

Black suffrage and women's suffrage did not rely on "reinterpretation"; those relied on amendments to the Constitution and new statutes to enforce the amendments.

The rights were always there in the constitution for women and blacks. Securing them meant reinterpreting the applicable definition of (full-fledged) people. The amendments acknowledged the reinterpretation.

[Florestan]

I hope you will pardon my ribbing. I have no quarrel with you.

Firstly, thank you for a new English word I wasn't aware of before --- ribbing. Saved for further use, if only my memory would serve me long enough. 

Secondly, I can't remember a single instance of we two quarreling. We are not always on the same side of the political, or even musical, fence --- and if you ask me, it's not even desirable that we be --- but as far as I'm concerned we've always been on the same side of the humane, civil and Christian side of the fence.  0:)

And in further good news:  chances are slim-to-nonexistent that Todd will accuse you of moral preening.  That distinction is reserved for liberal snowflakes 

Well, I am most certainly not a snowflake. Whether I am a liberal or not is heavily dependent on context; within my own, personal frame of reference I have no problem identifying myself as a staunch liberal. 

[Baron Scarpia]

The rights were always there in the constitution for women and blacks. Securing them meant reinterpreting the applicable definition of (full-fledged) people. The amendments acknowledged the reinterpretation.

You are not aware of the 14th, 15th and 19th amendments, which granted citizenship and voting rights to former slaves and voting rights to women? You may believe the rights "were always there" but at the time it was obvious that constitutional amendments were necessary to confer these rights.

[BasilValentine]

Excellent points.

The "excellent points" were apparently made by San Antone

"But those "deplorables" (your word, by way of Hillary Clinton) change with the times. The "deplorables who believed their power and status would be diminished" by civil rights legislation in the '50s and '60s were Southern Democrats.

Is it really productive to stigmatize your political opponents?  Are you really interested in a productive dialog with your political opponents or do you just like to hear yourself say what makes you feel good to express?"

It was by way of Christabel, not Clinton. I in no way wish to deny Democrats, southern or otherwise, the credit for being deplorable. I'm not involved in a disagreement with political opponents. I am defending human rights as enshrined in the constitution against those seeking to undermine them.

[BasilValentine]

You are not aware of the 14th, 15th and 19th amendments, which granted citizenship and voting rights to former slaves and voting rights to women? You may believe the rights "were always there" but at the time it was obvious that constitutional amendments were necessary to confer these rights.

Yes, of course the amendments were necessary to confer what any rational reading of the constitution in modern times would take for granted.

[Florestan]

It may be trending away from quite what you meant . . . but a chap here at the office was only this morning discussing how part of the process of thugocracies emerging (and with populist approval) from decayed democracies, is extreme political polarization.

I have expressed above my strong dislike and condemnation of this phenomenon.

Quite likely, if American democratic norms and respect for the law and Constitution are to be restored, part of the answer is going to be:  moderate politicians.

I quite agree, not least because Romania would greatly benefit from a similar approach.

Whether this is the same as middle-of-the-road politicians, I leave to others to solve.

Well, in my book moderate is not the same as unprincipled. It's good to see a US politician strongly denouncing Trump's military adventures; but if the self-same politician did not strongly denounce the military adventures of Bush Jr, or Obama, what credibility does he have in the eyes of a knowledgeable and thinking person?

[Todd]

The rights were always there in the constitution for women and blacks. Securing them meant reinterpreting the applicable definition of (full-fledged) people. The amendments acknowledged the reinterpretation.

Incorrect.  None of the three branches of the federal government have the enumerated power to define voting rights in the text of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and as such it was delegated to the states, which limited the franchise in all cases.  (The franchise is still limited.)  It was not until the post-Civil War amendments were ratified that voting rights were incorporated into the Constitution.  Using the "rational reading" bit does not change any of that. 

[Baron Scarpia]

Yes, of course the amendments were necessary to confer what any rational reading of the constitution in modern times would take for granted.

Nonsense. The constitution makes explicit reference to "free persons," implicitly recognizing the validity of human slavery. What you believe modern times "takes for granted" is in direct contradiction with the text of the constitution.

It was by way of Christabel, not Clinton. I in no way wish to deny Democrats, southern or otherwise, the credit for being deplorable. I'm not involved in a disagreement with political opponents. I am defending human rights as enshrined in the constitution against those seeking to undermine them.

Enshrined? I find this fetishism, viewing the constitution as some sort of holy document, as extremely destructive and pathological. The constitution is a deeply flawed document that protected the 'property' rights of slave masters.

[Pat B]

A weaker dollar is good for the US, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin says

"Obviously."

[SimonNZ]

And also why I am very skeptical when accusations of "fascism", "racism" and "sexism" are thrown around; I know only too well how such things, loosely and vaguely defined as they are (most of the time meaning simply "people with whom one disagrees", or in a more official context "people who disagree with the political orthodoxy enforced by the government") can ruin not only the reputation but also the life and liberty of a completely innocent person.

Who is being falsely accused?

If someone looks at Trumps attitude and actions regarding race and gender and aren't appalled, in fact think it all perfectly normal and natural...then they themselves are racist and sexist.

I've never seen anyone use those terms to mean merely "people I disagree with"

[BasilValentine]

Nonsense. The constitution makes explicit reference to "free persons," implicitly recognizing the validity of human slavery. What you believe modern times "takes for granted" is in direct contradiction with the text of the constitution.

Well, yeah, the modern definition of full-fledged (free) persons is in direct contradiction to the definition intended in the text of the constitution. A modern reading of "free persons" would mean all of us.

[milk]

Who is being falsely accused?

If someone looks at Trumps attitude and actions regarding race and gender and aren't appalled, in fact think it all perfectly normal and natural...then they themselves are racist and sexist.

I've never seen anyone use those terms to mean merely "people I disagree with"

A couple of people who participate in this thread HAVE expressed sympathy with racism and antisemitism. I don't know about sexism, maybe that too. I understand the anger that some on the right have but I don't get their continued enthusiasm for such a predator, outside of those racists and sexists. Though I think many young people don't realize how much better things are now than in the past, many men, and this thread may be all men, don't have any clue or curiosity about the reality that women have faced, having to navigate a world filled with lustful clueless males, twice their size, with bad intentions and all the power. Now we have this predator who revels and celebrates hatred of women and ethnic groups and this is somehow cathartic for some Americans?     

[Florestan]

A couple of people who participate in this thread HAVE expressed sympathy with racism and antisemitism.

Who are they? I can think of only one GMG member whose views could have been interpreted as racist (not sure about anti-semitism), but he hasn't been active for a very long time. Of the people currently active in this thread, to the best of my knowledge none is racist or anti-semitic.

[milk]

Who are they? I can think of only one GMG member whose views could have been interpreted as racist (not sure about anti-semitism), but he hasn't been active for a very long time. Of the people currently active in this thread, to the best of my knowledge none is racist or anti-semitic.

zamyrabyrd says something like, since everyone has some prejudice or other in their head at some point in their lives we can't really judge people who are racists. And that someone who generally hates Jews might have a good reason. He can defend himself, but it's close enough. If you can't say racism is wrong, what can you say? Of course the synprrr dude is like Alex Jones plus Jew-hating. Anyway, have we veered from Trump? Trump comes from a line of famous racists. Sins of the father or apple fell from the tree? 

[Karl Henning]

He soaked up racism with his daily eggs Benedict.

[Florestan]

zamyrabyrd says something like, since everyone has some prejudice or other in their head at some point in their lives we can't really judge people who are racists. And that someone who generally hates Jews might have a good reason. He can defend himself, but it's close enough.

Actually, he is a she. 

Of course the synprrr dude is like Alex Jones plus Jew-hating.

Ah, I forgot snyprrr, but I think this is a special case. His political posts are so crazy (and clearly different in tone and style from his musical ones) that sometimes I think he just likes being provocative for the sake of it. It's hard to believe that any moderately rational person can seriously write what he writes, both tone and content wise.