President Donald Trump's Final Days...

[Rogerbh]

I have learned, not working as a lawyer but with the law (I went to law school at night, passed the bar, but afterwards did not want to take a pay cut to start becoming a lawyer), that there is what the law is as written and what happens in reality. They are not the same. People reading the same paragraph can easily have different interpretations of what it means.

I do want a conservative Supreme Court, but I don't agree with Citizens United or with trying to change Roe v Wade. You seldom get people to do exactly what you want them to do and life proves that big money gets what it wants - and I don't have big money.

Like it or not, we are living right now with what Trump wants - not what is best for the country.

Also, I read there are a lot of false claims about Ford being made and I am unsure of the truth of what I have posted before - can't find any proof positive.

Lastly, the idea that Trump thrives on stress while stress has an extremely negative impact on my health bothers me to no end. Watching his face as the UN laughed at him, I was imagining his blood boiling, wearing down the blood vessel walls, ready to burst at any moment. Such happy thoughts.

There apparently is no god.

[laberbacke]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

I do want a conservative Supreme Court, but I don't agree with Citizens United or with trying to change Roe v Wade. You seldom get people to do exactly what you want them to do and life proves that big money gets what it wants - and I don't have big money.

Why do you want a "conservative" court, even though you seem very conscious of the fact that it will continue to transform the US into a corporate plutocratic Gilead that makes the robber baron era look like the Federation from Star Trek?

The rule of law, in its ideal form, protects ordinary people from the overreach and abuse of more powerful actors - most importantly, the government, corporations and the wealthy. It holds everyone to account, regardless of the power of their purse.

A "conservative" court will be the polar opposite of that ideal.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

I have learned, not working as a lawyer but with the law (I went to law school at night, passed the bar, but afterwards did not want to take a pay cut to start becoming a lawyer), that there is what the law is as written and what happens in reality. They are not the same. People reading the same paragraph can easily have different interpretations of what it means.

I do want a conservative Supreme Court, but I don't agree with Citizens United or with trying to change Roe v Wade. You seldom get people to do exactly what you want them to do and life proves that big money gets what it wants - and I don't have big money.

Like it or not, we are living right now with what Trump wants - not what is best for the country.

Also, I read there are a lot of false claims about Ford being made and I am unsure of the truth of what I have posted before - can't find any proof positive.

We really can't know for sure about any of this old sex and drinking stuff and it is disgusting to have this process devolve into a media and partisan shitstorm. It is horrible for Kavanaugh's family to go through this and very sad that Dr. Ford and her family have been forced into hiding with armed security. It is all so stupid. The whole thing could have been avoided if Kavanaugh had just said he didn't remember, not denied and pretended to be mister straight arrow.

We were much better off when the senators met behind closed doors and I'm pretty sure that the horse trading would have got us a better judge.

I realize now your link referred to the last line of your post. Yes, the hysterical TV coverage is not serving us in many ways. That whole routine with the "Satanist day care providers" was a ridiculous and tragic.

Our only hope is that enough Republican senators have doubts about Kavanaugh to abort his confirmation. I have long accepted that a conservative court is inevitable. I am willing to trust in the goodwill of men of true integrity even if our politics differ.

Ramming Kavanaugh through may cost the Republican party as badly as Johnson arm twisting the civil rights legislation through cost the Democrats. Lord, I will be happy when this administration is done with. The thought that we may have a president severely compromised by corrupt Russian oligarchs is just too sad for words.

I was struck by a post from our German member

Originally Posted by laberbacke

There's a world of difference between being a conservative and being a Trumpist. The Republicans have ceased to be a conservative party. They are a white supremacist, religiously fundamentalist cult whose dear leader can do no wrong, much like fascist movements in previous eras. They do not give a shit about issues actual conservatives deeply care about, like the rule of law, balancing budgets, upholding institutions, "family values" and trusting the process. If law, precedent or tradition stand in their way, they simply waltz over it to get what they want. That is the definition of an extremist.

Those values conservatives care about are values I care very deeply about.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Tyrants love compromised men. They don't trust honorable men . . . note Trump's problems with Mueller. Can't be bullied, bought or threatened, left no hostages to fortune, was a Marine in Vietnam while Trump suffered with bone spurs.

Trump no doubt loves the idea of Kavanaugh . . . the self pity and the misogyny suit him.

There are innumerable examples in history which support the truth of this point. Even LBJ was able to pass the Civil Rights Act through a very unwilling Congress (which JFK would never have been able to do) because he knew very damaging and compromising things about many people and was able to extort cooperation as the price of his silence. When you look at Russia, Putin himself is probably not all that corrupt; but he surrounds himself with crooks and pondlife, and there are reasons why he does it. The unhappy stories of men such as Thomas More and Thomas Beckett are examples of why tyrants don't like to have to deal with men of principle.

Henry II got rid of Thomas Beckett and conveniently denied intention. Henry VIII was more honest and openly had Thomas More and Archbishop John Fisher beheaded as a message to others. If Mr Trump could get away with overtly having Robert Mueller got rid of in the worst way possible, I am certain he would do it like a shot. As it is, he is rather like a B/W movie heroine tied to railway lines while the steam train slowly crawls up the hill towards her.

[laberbacke]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

There are innumerable examples in history which support the truth of this point. Even LBJ was able to pass the Civil Rights Act through a very unwilling Congress (which JFK would never have been able to do) because he knew very damaging and compromising things about many people and was able to extort cooperation as the price of his silence. When you look at Russia, Putin himself is probably not all that corrupt; but he surrounds himself with crooks and pondlife, and there are reasons why he does it. The unhappy stories of men such as Thomas More and Thomas Beckett are examples of why tyrants don't like to have to deal with men of principle.

Henry II got rid of Thomas Beckett and conveniently denied intention. Henry VIII was more honest and openly had Thomas More and Archbishop John Fisher beheaded as a message to others. If Mr Trump could get away with overtly having Robert Mueller got rid of in the worst way possible, I am certain he would do it like a shot. As it is, he is rather like a B/W movie heroine tied to railway lines while the steam train slowly crawls up the hill towards her.

Even the people who work for Trump serve in an ever-precarious position akin to being part of Stalin's or Hitler's entourage, or a member of the court of one of Rome's insane emperors (think Caligula, Nero, Commodus).

The one and only currency that counts in Trump's brain is media resonance, he is a reality TV celebrity after all, obsessed with watching himself and his minions on TV all day every day. If you're too timid and don't get enough airtime on Fox or CNN, you're fired - like Sean Spicer. But if you're too outrageous and hog too much airtime at the expense of the supreme leader, you're also fired - like Anthony Scaramucci.

It's a thin red line that no one can walk indefinitely without stumbling, hence why I'm not surprised that even a demon like Sarah "the hills have eyes" Sanders apparently wants to call it quits after the midterms.

Luckily for them, the United States isn't Rome yet, so the firing happens still per tweet, and not per poison or beheading.

[scoundrel]

I still regret the dismissal of Sean Spicer. He was one of the best performance artists I have ever seen, right up there with Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton and Marcel Marceau. The difference was thayt they worked with silence, whereas Sean Spicer worked with nonsense.

[laberbacke]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I still regret the dismissal of Sean Spicer. He was one of the best performance artists I have ever seen, right up there with Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton and Marcel Marceau. The difference was thayt they worked with silence, whereas Sean Spicer worked with nonsense.

He was America's Baghdad Bob.

[Rogerbh]

I don't want a nanny state. I see the snowflakes and SJWs block Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter from speaking at public Universities and I fear a liberal government backing such extremist tactics. If you believe that what they speak is nonsense, debate them.

The MeToo movement has gone to extremes and I fear a liberal government backing guilty until proven innocent tactics. I do want balanced budgets - but that is a pipe dream as I don't recall California or the US ever doing that - as a plan - I do recall surpluses because of higher than expected tax revenue - which was - from what I remember - quickly spent as permanent reoccurring increases to expenses such as salaries, etc. Something which led to Governor Gray Davis being recalled and replaced with Arnold, who didn't do much of a better job.

I distrust anyone who argues about "Family Values" - which causes religious people to dislike me. I do believe we need at least the level of government regulation that we have, stricter enforcement of the laws that we have - i.e. the Bundy's armed occupation of Federal land should have resulted in their deaths - that was a terrible precedent. Ruby Ridge, on the other hand, went too far. I do want the government to keep National and State parks as big as they are now, this decreasing of wildlands is not what I would want/support.

And of course, I support gun ownership.

All of the above leads to conservatives calling me a liberal kiss ass and liberals calling me a raving right wing nutcase. (I meet very few people who agree with me regarding my solution of just killing people who cause trouble - admittedly an unworkable answer as it would be abused. I don't mean expensive death penalty cases, I mean either stream lining the process or people disappearing. The amount of money we spend on prisons is such a waste. Three strikes and we kill you.)

Not sure what you mean by "institutions" - like marriage? The Constitution? Institutes of higher learning? Big Businesses? The separation of church and state?

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

I don't want a nanny state. I see the snowflakes and SJWs block Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter from speaking at public Universities and I fear a liberal government backing such extremist tactics. If you believe that what they speak is nonsense, debate them.

The MeToo movement has gone to extremes and I fear a liberal government backing guilty until proven innocent tactics. I do want balanced budgets - but that is a pipe dream as I don't recall California or the US ever doing that - as a plan - I do recall surpluses because of higher than expected tax revenue - which was - from what I remember - quickly spent as permanent reoccurring increases to expenses such as salaries, etc. Something which led to Governor Gray Davis being recalled and replaced with Arnold, who didn't do much of a better job.

I distrust anyone who argues about "Family Values" - which causes religious people to dislike me. I do believe we need at least the level of government regulation that we have, stricter enforcement of the laws that we have - i.e. the Bundy's armed occupation of Federal land should have resulted in their deaths - that was a terrible precedent. Ruby Ridge, on the other hand, went too far. I do want the government to keep National and State parks as big as they are now, this decreasing of wildlands is not what I would want/support.

And of course, I support gun ownership.

All of the above leads to conservatives calling me a liberal kiss ass and liberals calling me a raving right wing nutcase. (I meet very few people who agree with me regarding my solution of just killing people who cause trouble - admittedly an unworkable answer as it would be abused. I don't mean expensive death penalty cases, I mean either stream lining the process or people disappearing. The amount of money we spend on prisons is such a waste. Three strikes and we kill you.)

Not sure what you mean by "institutions" - like marriage? The Constitution? Institutes of higher learning? Big Businesses? The separation of church and state?

We are not all that different, except that I cannot trust the Republican party at all. I think you said that you live in the Bay Area, so you know the frustration of trying to have any intelligent conversation with the many lefties who immediately go off the rails when you try to advocate traditional values. They don't seem to get that traditional values include love and tolerance. Rule of law means due process, rules of evidence, and presumption of innocence. It cannot be right to block the Ann Coulters and Ben Shapiros from speaking. If one disagrees with them, it is incumbent to present a reasoned argument of alternative views.

As for institutions, I like your list and would throw in the scientific method and liberal tradition. By "liberal tradition" I mean the intellectual movement begun with Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. We have so many giants like Kant, Hume, Montesquieu, John Stuart Mill, William James. and so on. It seems we are now bouncing around between shouting morons utterly lacking in intellect or morals. I do think we need to rein in Big Business and Wall Street.

But for now, we are voices crying in the wilderness. (Oh, and we really can't start killing so many people. I feel like killing them, too, but It's bad karma.)

[laberbacke]

Is there one example of President Obama impeding the free spech of Ben Shapiro or Ann Coulter?

Because there are a thousand and one examples of President Trump impeding the free speech of journalists, athletes, elected officials, and ordinary people like you and I.

I take much of what Roger lists as projection of traits that "conservatives" are much more guilty of than liberals. The biggest group of snowflakes and woe-is-me pansies in the United States are so called "conservatives", who control every lever of government, are funded and supported by an endless supply of billionaire donations, think tanks and advocate groups and have their own government propaganda network, yet constantly whine and complain as if they were a besieged minority.

They always remind me of what Thomas Mann, the famed German author, wrote in his Californian exile when he learned of the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, one of the meanest Nazi thugs, and the Hitler regime's attempt to eulogize their bloodhound as a heroic national hero:

"It is absurd and once again leaves me with revulsion, witnessing the mixture of brutality and squeaking whininess that has always characterized Nazidom."

This is a government that steals children from their parents, traumatizing them for the rest of their lives, and puts them in cages and concentration camps. I prefer to reserve my outrage as a human being for these children, rather than for one of the fascist mouthpieces who support these crimes being heckled at Berkeley, and if you don't, then I'm sorry to say, but your priorities are really, really fucked up.