[rmnka447]

 hrothgar, on 2016-November-12, 17:36, said:

This was the first election cycle in 30 years in which there was a genuine chance to swing the Supreme Court from Conservative to Liberal.

Instead, we now have to deal with the following

1. The Republicans will get to pick a replacement for Scalia
2. Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Brennan are all extremely old. 1-2 of them are almost certain to be replaced

This isn't one of those cases where we get to wait four years and then squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube...

Elections have very real consequences

Funny, but one of the prime factors that drove some people to vote for Trump at the end was the thought that Hillary Clinton would be appointing Supreme Court justices.

Progressives/liberals only have themselves to blame. It seems like whenever they talk about judges it's in terms of appointing judges who agree with the liberal agenda and will essentially rubber stamp it. But judicial appointments should never be about enabling anyone's agenda -- progressive or conservative. As the third co-equal branch of the government, the court system needs to be an impartial arbiter which protects our freedoms, ensure individual's rights aren't infringed upon, and ensure no governmental branch oversteps its governmental role/authority. At the Supreme Court level, this means ensuring the Constitution remains a viable, working framework for our democratic republic.

If the courts ever become widely politicized, then we're well down the slippery slope to a totalitarian government. (If you don't believe this, then I suggest you find a copy of the excellent 1961 movie "Judgment at Nuremburg" and watch it. It's about the war crime trials after WWII, but focuses on a senior member of the German judiciary and the role he played in aiding and abetting the Nazis.)

A couple examples come to mind one historical, one hypothetical...

The historical example goes back to the 1930's depression era. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) worked with Congress to pass the National Recovery Act (NRA) which sought to help industry and businesses recover and get going again. But certain provisions of the law which imposed some conditions that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional. As a result, the law was struck down. After this happened, FDR started questioning why the Supreme Court should have 9 members. He talked about possibly raising the number of justices to 15 so he could appoint enough judges to get his programs through without any judicial interference. The American public let FDR know very rapidly that this was not an option.

For the hypothetical, let's suppose Barack Obama's orders on immigration were Ok'ed by the lower court and appealed to the Supreme Court where the 4-4 deadlock resulted in letting the lower court ruling stand. Then, Donald J. Trump gets elected President. What safeguard is there to prevent Trump from writing other orders that essentially go around Congress? The precedent will have been set. If we ever get to a spot where rule is by Presidential fiat, democracy is gone or shortly would be.

[Cyberyeti]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-12, 12:32, said:

So according to your analysis, if we average yearly deficits of $2 TRILLION over the next 10 years, everything will be fine, because the debt will only have doubled?

#NotSureIfTrolling

I disagree with most of this, but I like the headline:

Spoiled Americans now want to flee what they created

I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it's not out of line with what's gone before so saying "he's the worst (or second worst) ever" is a big overbid.

[andrei]

 cherdano, on 2016-November-12, 17:59, said:

There are lots of nutcases on BBF. But none of them are as despicable a human being as you are.

These days there are plenty of angry white males around: on this board, in Portland and throughout US.
No wonder DT got elected.

[jonottawa]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-12, 23:11, said:

You should know that the US doesn't have a monopoly on racist imbeciles by simply opening your eyes and looking at the policies in countries whose people hate us:

Gays being stoned to death
Women relegated to second class citizens or little more than slaves or possessions; being subjugated to their husbands who they may not have even chosen, often beaten for expressing an opinion.

But perhaps you should look at yourselves to see why you have a "racist imbecile" for a President.

There are many backward racists. They may not have voted if not for the condescending liberal elite constantly calling them bigoted, racist, stupid, uninformed, and uneducated. I'm sure there was a lot of "Let's show those pompous asses who's boss" votes.

There were many people who may or may not be racist, but are definitely sick of all the politically correct nonsense being pushed down their throats. Trump's message inspired them to vote.

There were many people who have seen the two Clinton justices and two Obama justices consistently rule in lockstep with each other in favor of interpreting the Constitution in a way that would have the Founding Fathers would have rolled over in their grave. They feared that a Clinton presidency would mean perhaps a quarter century of a majority of justices ruling that way. (My vote was partially based on that.)

There were many people that saw that Hillary Clinton as extremely corrupt and feared her being in power. Many if not most of those realized that Donald Trump would not be a good President but feared that Hillary would be worse for the country. (My vote was partially based on that.)

Many Obama voters who voted for Hope & Change saw divisiveness get worse in our country, did not see the racial situation improve (yes, the racists seemed to get worse during an Obama administration), and saw more people go into poverty. They weren't anxious to see four or eight more years of the same, and while they could not bring themselves to vote for Trump, they weren't inspired to vote for Clinton either.

This is the country we live in. Future demographics look to favor your side (an electoral map of the millennial votes was almost all blue.) However, for now, you have to realize that there are many people that do not think like you do, and if you want to get a government that's to your liking, you have to appease some of the voters described above. You cannot just say "We know what's best for you, so shut up and take our candidate!" and expect it to happen.

Brilliant post.

The essence of it is that the regressive Left hates America (the constitution, rule of law, checks & balances, ethical journalism, morality, patriotism, liberty, meritocracy, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, don't tread on me.) And many Americans still love America. And so the regressive Left has decided in its infinite wisdom to replace Americans who love America with foreigners who hate America as much as they do.

[rmnka447]

 andrei, on 2016-November-13, 09:07, said:

These days there are plenty of angry white males around: on this board, in Portland and throughout US.
No wonder DT got elected.

It's nice to think that you can compartmentalize Trump's victory to white males, but in the end Trump only did slightly better than Romney in getting votes.

A BIG factor in Trump winning was that Clinton didn't get turnout to the extent of 5 million less votes. I'm not so sure it's all that Hillary was not likeable because of trustworthiness issues.

Maybe, some of Trump's rhetoric about "they only come for your vote every 4 years and then do nothing" to the minority communities hit home. Minority communities have suffered far worse than whites through the last 14 or so years. Certainly, there was some palpable anger in black communities about Barack Obama's failure to deliver for them. It's pretty obvious that Donald Trump is viewed by many in these communities as racist, so he was never getting their vote. So in one way, it's possible that the lack of turnout was a protest non-vote saying "you've forgotten or ignored me so I'm not giving you my vote."

[PassedOut]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-13, 11:09, said:

The essence of it is that the regressive Left hates America (the constitution, rule of law, checks & balances, ethical journalism, morality, patriotism, liberty, meritocracy, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, don't tread on me.)

I know and have talked with a lot of people, and not one fits your description.

[y66]

I greatly appreciate awm's thoughtful comments on the topic of making his home elsewhere and kenberg's. This is not an easy decision. Life is short. The world is beautiful AND murderous. Moving isn't giving up. Giving up is giving up. Moving is a rational choice to change one's environment in order to thrive and perhaps engage even more constructively. It's also one of the basic freedoms which, surely, everyone cherishes just as much as they cherish the right of people who don't have this freedom to vote.

I recently read an interview with Richard Ford in which he said he had to leave New Orleans at one point in order to write (his wife stayed on longer because she had a job there that she loved and payed the bills). Ford has also more than once observed of the people who never left Mississippi (where he was born, raised and fled): the brave people stayed; and has admitted to being a fan of Walt Whitman's who had

Quote

the insane notion he could see all of America in a single paysage, who celebrated America for her industriousness but also condemned her for the cruelties of slavery, who was at once in Texas and Brooklyn, at once humble and immodest, the Whitman who declared:

This is the city and I am one of the citizens,
Whatever intersects the rest intersects me, politics, wars, markets, newspapers, schools,
The mayor and councils, banks, tariffs, steamships, factories, stocks, stores, real estate and personal estate.

.
I also enjoyed this 2014 story about Paul Kingsnorth

Quote

George Monbiot, one of the England’s most prominent environmental journalists, is among Kingsnorth’s oldest friends. In 2009, after the manifesto was published, he and Kingsnorth held a debate in The Guardian, for which Monbiot writes a column. It was a heated exchange. Kingsnorth argued that civilization was approaching collapse and that it was time to step back and talk about how to live through it with dignity and honor. Monbiot responded that “stepping back” from direct political action was equivalent to a near-criminal disavowal of one’s moral duty. “How many people do you believe the world could support without either fossil fuels or an equivalent investment in alternative energy?” he asked. “How many would survive without modern industrial civilization? Two billion? One billion? Under your vision, several billion perish. And you tell me we have nothing to fear.”

Naomi Klein also sees a troubling abdication in Kingsnorth’s work. “I like Paul, but he’s said rather explicitly that he’s giving up,” she told me. “We have to be honest about what we can do. We have to keep the possibility of failure in our minds. But we don’t have to accept failure. There are degrees to how bad this thing can get. Literally, there are degrees.”

On the surface, it can indeed seem as if Kingsnorth is giving up. Last week, he and his wife made a long-planned move to rural Ireland, where they will be growing much of their own food and home schooling their children — a decision, he explained to me, that stemmed in part from a desire to distance himself from technological civilization and in part from wanting to teach his children skills they might need in a hotter future. Yet Kingsnorth has never intended to retreat altogether. For the past three years, he has spent a good portion of his time trying to stop a large supermarket from being built in Ulverston, in northern England. “Why do I do this,” he wrote to me in an email, anticipating my questions, “when I know that in a national context another supermarket will make no difference at all, and when I know that I can’t stop the trend caused by the destruction of the local economy, and when I know we probably won’t win anyway?” He does it, he said, because his sense of what is valuable and good recoils at all that supermarket chains represent. “I’m increasingly attracted by the idea that there can be at least small pockets where life and character and beauty and meaning continue. If I could help protect one of those from destruction, maybe that would be enough. Maybe it would be more than most people do. “

It’s an ethic reflected in the novel he has just published. When he was a schoolboy, Kingsnorth told me, his teachers described the Norman Conquest, in 1066, as a swift transformation. An army of Norman and French soldiers from across the channel invaded England and swept away Anglo-Saxon civilization. The old ways vanished, and a new world emerged. He was surprised to learn, much later, that a resistance movement bedeviled the conquerors for a full decade. These resisters were known as the Silvatici, or “wild men.” Eventually William the Conqueror drove them from the woods and slaughtered every last one of them. They were doomed from the start, and knew it. But that hadn’t stopped them from fighting.

In Kingsnorth’s telling, it also didn’t stop them from wondering whether they should keep fighting. On the afternoon following the concert, standing in the wooden shelter, he described his novel as being both about the collapse of a civilization and about the collapse of long-cherished certainties about what it means to be civilized. His introductory remarks were lively and entertaining, but nervously so, as if he were reluctant to begin. Later, he told me it was the first time he’d ever read publicly from the book. He read a strange excerpt, a sort of dream vision about a young boy and a stag. “I have no idea which part of my subconscious I dredged this up from,” he later wrote me, “but the conversation they end up having is pretty much the conversation I have with myself at the moment when it comes to what the hell I can possibly do to be of any use at all”:

when will i be free saes the cilde to the stag
and the stag saes thu will nefer be free
then when will angland be free
angland will nefer be free
then what can be done
naht can be done
then how moste i lif
thu moste be triewe that is all there is
be triewe
be triewe

“I hope these ramblings are of some use to you!” he signed off. “I will have a glass of wine now and try not to worry about it.”

and this poem

Quote

Then we will go to Europe

by Paul Kingsnorth

Then we will go to Europe, go
to Venice or Berlin, and live like Rilke
in communes of verse and there,
maybe there, we will shake off this disease

which dulls our senses and dulls everything
and spreads like aluminium
and clings like a plastic bag in a high branch,
like crude to a gannet’s feathers. Or

if not in the cities then in the forests
or in red caves in red deserts
or around the craters of gunungs in the archipelago
or among sandstone towers in the valleys of the West.
Oh ’

I don’t know. Just take me
somewhere it has not yet reached, somewhere
lonely and still real and let me
stand there and feel nothing
and lose the fear and, finally,
breathe.

[awm]

Honestly, I am not out to "change America" or anything like that. Most people react more to emotion and faith-based arguments than facts anyway, and any talents I have don't lie in that direction. In fact the country seems to have voted that (among other things) educated liberal Jewish-Atheist scientists like myself are to blame for most of the country's problems and are not welcome here. By leaving I am very much respecting the election and the will of the electorate! The America I believed existed for the last forty years was quite different from this, but maybe things have changed or I just never knew what was going on in the middle of the country.

Like most people, I just want to live a happy life. I want to work at a job that challenges and interests me, where I'm doing something that I believe is good (or at least not bad) for the rest of the world. I want to live in a place where I feel safe and secure, and where my family, friends, and coworkers (who may be of different gender or religion or sexual orientation or ethnicity) are similarly safe and secure. I'd like to have sufficient wealth and freedom that I can do things I enjoy, like traveling and playing bridge, and retiring at an age where I can do those sorts of things full time. Of course I have my political views (which tend to center around believing that properly-run government can be a mechanism to reign in big corporations and to maintain individual safety and security and freedom).

In fact many of the standard things Republicans want are good for me personally -- my income is high enough that their tax cuts help me, and I don't directly benefit from the federal programs they most want to cut. Certainly I am bothered by the fact that many of their policies are bad for other people I know (like my wife's students for example) or even people I don't know, and I worry that they will give big corporations too much power to pollute or underpay workers, and that we will see people dying on the streets from easily-curable diseases because basic health care is priced out of reach. But again, I work for a big and powerful company that treats me pretty well so the personal impact is small. A "normal Republican" (like McCain in '08 or Romney in '12 or either of the Bush elections) would not have me considering leaving the country.

This election though, seemed very much a referendum on whether people who are not white christians ought to be welcome in this country at all. I don't want to live in a country where bullying is accepted, women can be grabbed by their private parts, and people like me are blamed for problems that we really had nothing to do with. So I'm respecting the will of the electorate and leaving. Yes, I'm sure some of them would rather that I be burned at the stake or at least waterboarded (hey I guess we are doing that again now?) But I'm not going to be quite that obliging.

[kenberg]

Adam, I doubt that anyone wants to waterboard you! On the other hand, if that's the best that can be said for where the country is, I see your point.

We will all make our choices. As I mentioned, there was a small family gathering last night, my younger daughter had a birthday. Two grandkids were there, aged 14 and 17. The adults talked about the election, the 17 year old talked about Physics, the 14 year old knew about Terrence Tau and wanted to hear about arithmetic progressions of primes. As to Trump discussion, nobody really had clear ideas, or at least I didn't. My son-in-law favored an all purpose pardon for Clinton, thinking that Giuliani will be the AG and will hope to make life miserable for her. I see the point, but I go with giving Trump/Guiliani/whomever the opportunity to show at least some restraint. Of course it will not be me in the crosshairs. My daughter's view was more of extreme dismay that such a discussion could ever be taking place. On this we could all agree.

We will all choose. I am not sure I have much more to say on this whole business of Trump.

[Winstonm]

We progressives made a fatal error in this election cycle in the assumption that reason would overcome rage; however, we never in our wildest dreams understood that our neighbors, those living side-by-side with us were not just the opposition party but genuine enemies.

I see today that Trump is already promising to follow through with his "Deportation Squads". Just what this country needs is bands of roaming police and military rounding up people at the point of a gun. What will be next, the brown-shirts and Trump Youth pointing out detractors?

Make no mistake. It is not Trump that is so dangerous to freedom. It is the people who supported or ignored his vitriol and voted him into office.

[Winstonm]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-12, 23:11, said:

There were many people who may or may not be racist, but are definitely sick of all the politically correct nonsense being pushed down their throats. Trump's message inspired them to vote.

It may come as a shock to you that political correctness is simply a matter of following the teachings of Christ to treat others as you would have them do to you. Or easier still, it is simple civility. It is simply a matter of respect to describe someone as challenged rather than retarded. In fact, political correctness is more an acknowledgement that the randomness of evolution could have left you with the same malady, affliction, or disability and it shows compassion for those who nature treated less kindly.

To bitch and hate the idea of having to be speak with compassion about another human being is quintessentially racist.

Live with it - the bigot you describe lives in your mirror.

[Winstonm]

 awm, on 2016-November-13, 12:52, said:

This election though, seemed very much a referendum on whether people who are not white christians ought to be welcome in this country at all. I don't want to live in a country where bullying is accepted, women can be grabbed by their private parts, and people like me are blamed for problems that we really had nothing to do with. So I'm respecting the will of the electorate and leaving. Yes, I'm sure some of them would rather that I be burned at the stake or at least waterboarded (hey I guess we are doing that again now?) But I'm not going to be quite that obliging.

There are elements of this society who would do just that - maybe worse - do we forget so soon the lynchings of the KKK, the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, or the murder of Martin Luther King Jr.? There are people in this country who would mimic Isis and kill with no compunction those with whom they hate for no other reason than they are different than themselves.

The ugliest part of this election is that those people - a violent minority - were granted a voice by Trump, who at every rally urged hate and violence and discrimination, and were then legitimized by every single person who marked a ballot for Trump, regardless of their reasoning to do so.

If you do not actively say no to bigotry, you are in silent agreement. From this you cannot hide.

[jonottawa]

 Winstonm, on 2016-November-13, 14:51, said:

There are people in this country who would mimic Isis and kill with no compunction those with whom they hate for no other reason than they are different than themselves.

Yes, they're called Islamic terrorists. They not only WOULD mimic ISIS, they HAVE mimicked ISIS, and they will again. And President Trump will protect America from them.

https://en.wikipedia...lamic_terrorism

Democrats are the party of media bias and collusion, of the constitution meaning whatever the popular culture of the day thinks it should mean, of a corrupt Justice Department, of open borders, of globalism, of rigged primaries, of election fraud, of immorality, of misandry, of hedonism, of degeneracy, of deadbeat dads, of prescription drug addiction, of corruption, graft, bribery & lobbyists calling the shots. Many of them call for the murder of the President-elect & the rape of the future First Lady (both hashtags are trending on Twitter.) And just here on this forum, we can see how offensively many behave, violating the rule against personal attacks again and again.

President Trump rejects all that. God bless him. And God bless the country that elected him in a landslide.



https://youtu.be/zY3nRgEZTm8?t=5m47s

[Winstonm]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-13, 15:01, said:

Yes, they're called Islamic terrorists. They not only WOULD mimic ISIS, they HAVE mimicked ISIS, and they will again. And President Trump will protect America from them.

Some day you may find out you live in a real world rather than imaginary - for your sake I hope you do.

[hrothgar]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-13, 15:01, said:

Yes, they're called Islamic terrorists. They not only WOULD mimic ISIS, they HAVE mimicked ISIS, and they will again. And President Trump will protect America from them.

Winston made a serious point.

Are you unable to understand it or do you just find it amusing to play the idiot?

[Winstonm]

This says it better than anything I have seen thus far.

Quote

Here’s Why We Grieve Today
NOVEMBER 9, 2016 / JOHN PAVLOVITZ

I don’t think you understand us right now.

I think you think this is about politics.

I think you believe this is all just sour grapes; the crocodile tears of the losing locker room with the scoreboard going against us at the buzzer.

I can only tell you that you’re wrong. This is not about losing an election. This isn’t about not winning a contest. This is about two very different ways of seeing the world.

[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2016-November-13, 14:19, said:

It may come as a shock to you that political correctness is simply a matter of following the teachings of Christ to treat others as you would have them do to you. It is simply a matter of respect to describe someone as challenged rather than retarded. In fact, political correctness is more an acknowledgement that the randomness of evolution could have left you with the same malady, affliction, or disability and it shows compassion for those who nature treated less kindly.

To bitch and hate the idea of having to be speak with compassion about another human being is quintessentially racist.

Live with it - the bigot you describe lives in your mirror.

Political correctness wouldn't be that much of a problem if it were used simply as you define it. But, unfortunately, some progressives try to use it as a club to silence any disagreement with what they see as the only acceptable view of social and political issues. You ought to read "The Silencing" by Kirsten Powers. She is a dyed-in-the-wool LIBERAL and CNN contributor. She wrote the book to point out by chapter and verse of how the radical left is attempting to coopt free speech and discussion in this country. She's labeled them "illiberal" liberals. It's chilling because the behavior described points back not only to similar behavior during the right wing McCarthyism of the '50s, but even further to the kinds of things that the Nazis did to try to take over Germany in the '30's.

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2016-November-13, 18:04, said:

Political correctness wouldn't be that much of a problem if it were used simply as you define it. But, unfortunately, some progressives try to use it as a club to silence any disagreement with what they see as the only acceptable view of social and political issues. You ought to read "The Silencing" by Kirsten Powers. She is a dyed-in-the-wool LIBERAL and CNN contributor. She wrote the book to point out by chapter and verse of how the radical left is attempting to coopt free speech and discussion in this country. She's labeled them "illiberal" liberals. It's chilling because the behavior described points back not only to similar behavior during the right wing McCarthyism of the '50s, but even further to the kinds of things that the Nazis did to try to take over Germany in the '30's.

I don't understand why you would point to the most radical extremes of the political spectrum to try to make a point about political correctness - when the extreme right speaks of violence and hate. We all know extremes are unhealthy, either way. This election was sad because the extremes were legitimized by the President-elect.

[barmar]

 billw55, on 2016-November-11, 13:23, said:

Again I wonder, how much of this is truth versus hoax.

From http://www.usatoday....s-say/93681294/

Quote

The [Southern Poverty Law Center], which tracks hate crimes, says it has logged more than 200 complaints since the election, and while it could not provide a figure for the average number of complaints it takes in each day, Cohen assured that the number is much larger than what is typical.

[mike777]

1) I hope posters stop with the SPLC it has lost all credibility for months if not years.
2) As for the election, as I understand it Clinton lost 4 million votes from 2012, not gained but lost.. as I understand it Trump gained zero or something less than zero .enough said.



I read about millions of people not accepting and causing millions of dollars of damage not accepting the election of an old white guy a very old white guy who is ...fill in the blank. I guess since he is white and male killing people and causing millions in destruction is a side note see 60 minutes tv....tonight.


-----


see my notes on a minority who stop in trusting institutions.
Please read history from roughly 1912-1914, revolution only requires an angry minority....and distrust in institutions.....