SCOTUS: And the winner is... Neil Gorsuch

[person0]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I know a lot of people who held their nose and voted Trump because he was more likely to pick agreeable people for the SCOTUS than the other choice.  Those people's hopes seem to have been realized.  

Judge Gorsuch is only 2 years older than me.  He might be on the bench for the next 50 years.  

 

I did not vote for trump, but I did so knowing that Trump would win in my state regardless.  I was glad that Trump won over Hillary, and I was excited to give him a chance, but so far, with the exception of Gorsuch, I'm not seeing enough to satisfy any substantial progress that this Country needs.  Even Gorsuch, though a very positive thing puts us back at status quo considering he replaces Scalia.  The next SCOTUS Judge that dies is where we have the potential to make real progress.

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, person0 said:

I did not vote for trump, but I did so knowing that Trump would win in my state regardless.  I was glad that Trump won over Hillary, and I was excited to give him a chance, but so far, with the exception of Gorsuch, I'm not seeing enough to satisfy any substantial progress that this Country needs.  Even Gorsuch, though a very positive thing puts us back at status quo considering he replaces Scalia.  The next SCOTUS Judge that dies is where we have the potential to make real progress.

Okay, let me ask you.  What would you consider a substantial progress?  Just name one thing/issue you were looking for.

Edited April 8, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

21 hours ago, yjacket said:

I'd like I said, you don't need 60 votes to pass legislation you only need 50+1

Yes, you need 50+1 to pass an up/down vote.  You need 60 to end debate in the Senate on new legislation so you can get to the up/down vote.  So, however you slice and dice it, you need 60 votes to get it done.  I don't know why that is hard to understand.

Edited April 8, 2017 by anatess2

[yjacket]

43 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, you need 50+1 to pass an up/down vote.  You need 60 to end debate in the Senate on new legislation so you can get to the up/down vote.  So, however you slice and dice it, you need 60 votes to get it done.  I don't know why that is hard to understand.

Lol . . .now you are starting to come to what I have been saying all along! (and what I've been saying all along a firm 50+1 majority will always get their way, if they want to-see Gorsutch).  There is a difference b/w the vote to pass the bill and a vote to end debate.  2 different votes on 2 different things. You don't need 60 votes to pass, you only need 60 votes to end debate and that only comes into play if 40 people want to filibuster.  As seen with the recent vote, 4 dems crossed over to vote for him.

That's why this is a moot point.  You are advocating that instead of submitting Gorsutch to Congress 2 months ago, Trump should have submitted someone who could get past a possible filibuster.

The point being the Pres. nor the House should build a bill or confirmation worrying about and taking into consideration that it will be filibustered.  You pass the best bill and then wait and see if it does get filibustered.  If it does, then and only then, do you work on a compromise.  That is how the process works.  If it gets filibusted then you get the house/senate together for a compromise bill.  You don't try to compromise before you are at the compromise table.

Again, why are you carrying water for Trump and Ryan?? You are obviously a conservative, but when the guys you like do something that definitely isn't conservative instead of calling them out, you defend them?  Why, I don't get it.

I voted for Trump in the General, but I still think what he has done with Syria is absolutely stupid and not what I voted for and OCarelite was stupid and not what I voted for.  He went in the 1st month from a solid A to now a D in my book.  Just b/c I vote for them, doesn't mean I'm starstruck or mean I defend them to the nth degree.

Edited April 8, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, yjacket said:

 I still think what he has done with Syria is absolutely stupid 

 Wrong. What he is doing in Syria will protect us for generations to come, in fact, it might cause world peace to break out. After all, we desperately need to get involved in another un-winnable conflict in the middle east. In fact, it's obviously vital to our national security to shove our nose in something that it doesn't belong in anyway. You unpatriotic hippie pacifist! 

(obviously kidding.  Agree totally that what is doing in Syria is a horrible idea) 

[Just_A_Guy]

Two thoughts:

First, fwiw, I think most of us on the right figured Gorsuch could survive a filibuster. He was confirmed to the federal bench unanimously (IIRC), and before the Dems put out their memo Gorsuch was getting public support from even some influential folks on the center-left.

Second, I don't want to see the US taking sides in Syria; but I think it is in America's interest to ensure, whenever possible, that  those who use weapons of mass destruction pay a heavy price for doing so.  I think Trump made the right call with this missile strike; though I would oppose deeper involvement.  IMHO American foreign policy should champion good guys; and there are no sides that can be called "the good guys" in Syria.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Second, I don't want to see the US taking sides in Syria; but I think it is in America's interest to ensure, whenever possible, that  those who use weapons of mass destruction pay a heavy price for doing so.  I think Trump made the right call with this missile strike; though I would oppose deeper involvement.  IMHO American foreign policy should champion good guys; and there are no sides that can be called "the good guys" in Syria.

Incorrect, it is definitely not in the United States national security interest to keep Assad from using chem weapons.  The US was not directly attacked, no US personal, no US companies, equipment etc.  "Deterring" Assad from using them has absolutely no relevance to deterring someone who would use them directly against the US.  In fact attacking Assad is so antithetical to US principles it is astounding.  At least in most US attacks on other countries over the last 100 years there was at least some pretense that the US was directly attacked.  

Now it is just well just b/c we don't like you.

It was however in the US empire's interest to rebuke Assad.  The sooner we call it what it is and recognize the difference the sooner we can have an honest open debate about it.

The US today is an empire just as much as Rome was in ancient days and as Great Britain was in the 1700&1800s.  Sure, we don't have overt colonies and vassals, but you better believe we have them.  The sooner we understand that, the better we can see just what exactly is going on.  

IMO, the US empire is 180 degrees opposite what this country was founded upon and what it should be about.

Edited April 8, 2017 by yjacket

[Just_A_Guy]

Call it an "empire", or call it the Pax Americana, or whatever.  In any event, I don't think it makes Americans--whether at home, or living/working/traveling abroad--any safer, to have a hundred-ought nations with varying levels of stability suddenly decide that it is in their interests to start stockpiling chemical weapons against a day where such weapons can be used with impunity.

Politically, I still tend to think that in spite of the costs of global intervention; as a nation we tend to be better off when there is some modicum of world peace (or at least, when regional conflagarations don't go global).  

And even if I am wrong about that:  because I am a Latter-day Saint first and an American second, I can't help but note that the Pax Americana is a big part of what keeps our missionaries traveling throughout much of the globe, keeps members free to practice their religions in their homelands, keeps local congregations free to receive material assistance from Salt Lake, and keeps our brothers and sisters from being robbed, maimed, raped, and killed by soldiers of aspiring thug-ocracies.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And even if I am wrong about that:  because I am a Latter-day Saint first and an American second, I can't help but note that the Pax Americana is a big part of what keeps our missionaries traveling throughout much of the globe, keeps members free to practice their religions in their homelands, keeps local congregations free to receive material assistance from Salt Lake, and keeps our brothers and sisters from being robbed, maimed, raped, and killed by soldiers of aspiring thug-ocracies.

I can't breath through all the smoke of your Hubris.

I highly doubt the rest of the world sees it that way as you must not travel much.  The US is hated pretty much around the world.

Don't you worry, the US will get it's comeuptence at some point; we like to think we are the "beacon of hope" that we are such a pristine country . . .when in actuality, we are pretty darn bad.

[Just_A_Guy]

44 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I can't breath through all the smoke of your Hubris.

I highly doubt the rest of the world sees it that way as you must not travel much.  The US is hated pretty much around the world.

Don't you worry, the US will get it's comeuptence at some point; we like to think we are the "beacon of hope" that we are such a pristine country . . .when in actuality, we are pretty darn bad.

*Shrug* I haven't said America is loved.  What I have suggested is that the world, and the Church, are better off with a Pax Americana than they are without it.  If you've watched the leaked video of ex-Senator Gordon Smith addressing certain members of the Q12, you will have seen that American influence has opened many doors for the Church; and the GA's understand this.  Europe, Africa, South America, and East Asia may grumble about the US--but they mostly aren't at war with each other; and when push comes to shove they do tend to recognize Western ideals of religious tolerance.  Thus the Church's missionaries, members, and properties are relatively unmolested, and have been for most of the Church's modern existence.

Do we realize just how extraordinary such a situation is in the sweep of human history?  Do we understand what an unholy mess Europe was before the Congress of Vienna--or most of the rest of the world was, right up through World War 2?  Peace, prosperity, and coexistence with people outside of the dominant "herd", are not the natural state of human existence.  The Church in this dispensation has benefitted enormously from the Pax Britannica and the Pax Americana.  As with Chesterton's fence, it is prudent to be able to accurately visualize the world without a particular institution before one sets about trying to tear that institution down.  

Politically, socially, and culturally; I agree with you that America is pretty much done.  It's on us as Church members and hasten to move the work forward while conditions are still favorable; and to that end--all that's left for America is to keep the lid on things as long as possible before the inevitable collapse comes.  That's why I support what Trump has done.  If it deters Venezuela from a chemical weapons atfack on Bogota (where there is an LDS stake and temple), or keeps Nigeria from developing anthrax that is subsequently stolen by Boko Haram and used in an attack on Lagos (where there is another LDS stake and temple)--in my book, it's well worth it.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[person0]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, let me ask you.  What would you consider a substantial progress?  Just name one thing/issue you were looking for.

I will name multiple, if just 1 of them is successfully accomplished I would consider it substantial progress:

1)  Pass a formal budget that if followed leads to the eventual complete payment of the national debt. (This is more important than anything else on the list)
2)  Establish term limits for all elected offices in the Federal Government.
3)  Establish a regulation stating that each law must directly relate to only 1 topic.  (To eliminate earmarks and unnecessary fluff in legislation)
4)  Enforce all existing federal immigration laws nationwide.  Also require e-verify type employment checks to enforce existing US employment laws.
5)  Completely eliminate the Federal Department of Education and return this obligation to the states. 
6)  Repeal all regulations related to Common Core - allow states and local governments to decide.
7)  Eliminate the EPA and return this responsibility to the states.
8)  Eliminate all aspects of the Federal Department of Energy that are not related to national security and return this responsibility to the states.
9)  Privatize Social Security, or if not possible, establish a phase-out with transition to a state run model.
10)  Completely eliminate federal reimbursements to Planned Parenthood, and any other medical provider specializing in abortion, regardless of service performed.
11)  Pass a balanced budget amendment, allowing Federal Government debt only in times of War.
12) Eliminate the IRS and instead require each state to pay Federal taxes per-capita, collecting those taxes as they see fit.  Or more realistically establish either the Fair Tax or Flat Tax.

I could keep going on and on.  But really the budget is the number one issue.  If the government can maintain or reduce the tax burden and also pay down the debt, this would be amazing progress that would strengthen our country.  By allowing states to remain sovereign on most issues as is their constitutional right, each states will be able to compete for residents, businesses, etc.  If states are competing, Americans will in general enjoy more freedom.  Each state can be a testing ground for legislation and when something fails it can be more easily repaired because it is not failing the country at large.

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Second, I don't want to see the US taking sides in Syria; but I think it is in America's interest to ensure, whenever possible, that  those who use weapons of mass destruction pay a heavy price for doing so.  I think Trump made the right call with this missile strike; though I would oppose deeper involvement.  IMHO American foreign policy should champion good guys; and there are no sides that can be called "the good guys" in Syria.

Agree 100%. I'm not opposed to what Trump did. He needed to send a message to Assad and he did so. I am, however, very worried about what his next move(s) will be. Just as Saddam was the dam that kept back the scourge of Al Queda and what would become ISIS in Iraq, so Assad is (albeit less competently) a blockade of sorts against further ISIS control in Syria and its neighboring countries. We need to choose our strategy very carefully moving forward lest we unleash further havoc on that region.

3 hours ago, yjacket said:

Incorrect, it is definitely not in the United States national security interest to keep Assad from using chem weapons.  The US was not directly attacked, no US personal, no US companies, equipment etc.  "Deterring" Assad from using them has absolutely no relevance to deterring someone who would use them directly against the US.  In fact attacking Assad is so antithetical to US principles it is astounding.  At least in most US attacks on other countries over the last 100 years there was at least some pretense that the US was directly attacked.  

Now it is just well just b/c we don't like you.

The US didn't have much national security interest in Europe in the 1940s either, but I think it's safe to say that our involvement ultimately did a great deal of good. Turning a blind eye to unspeakable atrocity is irresponsible for a nation of our means and resources. I've got news for you, we're not an isolationist country anymore, and we never will be again. For better or worse, we have made ourselves global force of influence, and I don't see us changing course anytime soon. 

That being said, I'll reiterate what I said above, that we need to be very careful moving forward. I'm all for getting rid of Assad, just as I was in favor of getting rid of Saddam. But we need to do it the right way. We blew it big time in Iraq. We can't afford another mess like that. I trust Trump far less with our military than I did GWB (and I had virtually no faith in Bush). I can only hope that he will listen to his military advisors carefully and trust their expertise, especially Matthis. 

[yjacket]

25 minutes ago, Godless said:

The US didn't have much national security interest in Europe in the 1940s either,

SMH . . . oh my.  Unfortunately we learned the wrong lessons from the 20th century.  Ever heard of WWI?  

The US directly ensured WWII by entering into WWI.  The reason why Hitler came to power and was able to convince the Germans to go along with him was specifically b/c of the Treaty of Versailles.  What about the Middle East?  All of the problems in the middle east boil down to the "great" empires drawing artificial lines on a map to carve up a region that is controlled by tribal interest.

What about the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan?  Granted the US isn't like the mass murders of the 20th century, but to make out like the US is a paradigm of sainthood in an evil world is just plain ignorant, stupid, and turns a blind eye to the whole mess the US has created in so many parts of the world.

The Syrian problem is the US's making. ISIS was created by the US!!! This isn't conspiracy theory junk, it's out there, you just have to look it up.  The US gave over a billion, yes BILLION dollars a year funding "rebels" against Assad.  Where did that money/weapons go . . .to ISIS!!!

Do you realize that the US is literally funding the taliban? We built a massive huge generator over there and the Taliban ended up shooting the operators so we made a deal that said we'll give you 30% of the power generation if you don't kill people.

9/11 was a direct cause of the US meddling in the middle east during Gulf War I.  Bin Laden said as much.  

This really isn't rocket science here.  If China started funneling money and weapons into the United States to support groups opposed to the US regime a lot of people would be pissed.  If China had drones overhead and killed people during weddings and funerals, we would be pissed.  It is the ultimate golden rule . . .but no.  We are so Christian, we are sooo good, we are so awesome that it is amazing that the rest of the world doesn't bow down when we crap b/c we crap golden bricks.

Man, it is one of the things that drives me nuts about the Republican party . . .they really are the War Party.  

Assad?? Really, shoot we had operators watching drones watch the entire thing happen and they aren't positive on what went down.  We can't figure out if Russia hacked the DNC, but in less than 24 hours we know Assad did it?  We couldn't find WMD in Iraq, yet in 24 hours Assad did it?

Stupid, stupid, stupid media and stupid brain dead people just swallow whatever it is the State wants for War Propaganda hook, line and sinker. 

Wake up and do some reading of history.

People talk about our "depleted military"  such stupid propaganda:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service

The US has 19 active aircraft carriers, the entire rest of the world has 21!!!!  

Military-Industrial-Intelligence-Complex.  You want to know where many of the Gadiannton Robbers are . . . just look there.  A lot of people are going to wake up one day and be real surprised when the see the evil their own government has committed in the name of righteousness.

Edited April 8, 2017 by yjacket

[yjacket]

36 minutes ago, Godless said:

I'm all for getting rid of Assad, just as I was in favor of getting rid of Saddam. But we need to do it the right way. We blew it big time in Iraq. We can't afford another mess like that.

Obviously we didn't learn the right lesson, so we will have to learn it again.  There is no "right way" except to not do it.  You can't just overthrow a dictator, install a "democracy" in a region who's culture, background, ethnicity, people, etc. are completely anti-antithetical to it.  IT DOESN'T WORK.

But we are stupid as a people on this, so we will get into another war in Syria and have to learn this lesson again . . .(sigh) and how much more blood we will have to spill, how much more treasure will we have to spend for us to wake up and realize it.  

The sad thing is that for the US, modern war is so tidy, so clean.  Hardly anyone on "our" side dies, no one has to pay heavy taxes for it.  It's just ho-hum, let's go start a war, no biggie. Everyone else gets to die, we can destroy and burn cities, kill thousands of innocents all behind a keyboard in Nevada. For the US and it's people, war is cheap, just like everything else in this country, sex is cheap, morals are cheap, life is too easy.  We have forgotten what it's really like to earn our bread by the sweat of our brow.  

Do you realize there are kids that in another year will be fighting who were born after 9/11. 16 years of war.  16 flipping years of war.  And you people are glad that Trump committed an act of War against another sovereign nation.  My God what have we come to.  16 years.

We have homosexual marriage, transgender crap, immorality displayed all over the TV, news, etc. People have no civility, children are being raised as brats . . .and we have the moral rectitude to commit an act of War?? Shame on anyone who advocates for war in this situation.  Shame on you.

One day, God will balance us . . . 

Edited April 8, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest Godless]

28 minutes ago, yjacket said:

SMH . . . oh my.  Unfortunately we learned the wrong lessons from the 20th century.  Ever heard of WWI?  

The US directly ensured WWII by entering into WWI.  The reason why Hitler came to power and was able to convince the Germans to go along with him was specifically b/c of the Treaty of Versailles.  What about the Middle East?  All of the problems in the middle east boil down to the "great" empires drawing artificial lines on a map to carve up a region that is controlled by tribal interest.

What about the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan?  Granted the US isn't like the mass murders of the 20th century, but to make out like the US is a paradigm of sainthood in an evil world is just plain ignorant, stupid, and turns a blind eye to the whole mess the US has created in so many parts of the world.

The Syrian problem is the US's making. ISIS was created by the US!!! This isn't conspiracy theory junk, it's out there, you just have to look it up.  The US gave over a billion, yes BILLION dollars a year funding "rebels" against Assad.  Where did that money/weapons go . . .to ISIS!!!

Do you realize that the US is literally funding the taliban? We built a massive huge generator over there and the Taliban ended up shooting the operators so we made a deal that said we'll give you 30% of the power generation if you don't kill people.

9/11 was a direct cause of the US meddling in the middle east during Gulf War I.  Bin Laden said as much.  

This really isn't rocket science here.  If China started funneling money and weapons into the United States to support groups opposed to the US regime a lot of people would be pissed.  If China had drones overhead and killed people during weddings and funerals, we would be pissed.  It is the ultimate golden rule . . .but no.  We are so Christian, we are sooo good, we are so awesome that it is amazing that the rest of the world doesn't bow down when we crap b/c we crap golden bricks.

Man, it is one of the things that drives me nuts about the Republican party . . .they really are the War Party.  

Assad?? Really, shoot we had operators watching drones watch the entire thing happen and they aren't positive on what went down.  We can't figure out if Russia hacked the DNC, but in less than 24 hours we know Assad did it?  We couldn't find WMD in Iraq, yet in 24 hours Assad did it?

Stupid, stupid, stupid media and stupid brain dead people just swallow whatever it is the State wants for War Propaganda hook, line and sinker. 

Wake up and do some reading of history.

People talk about our "depleted military"  such stupid propaganda:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service

The US has 19 active aircraft carriers, the entire rest of the world has 21!!!!  

Military-Industrial-Intelligence-Complex.  You want to know where many of the Gadiannton Robbers are . . . just look there.  A lot of people are going to wake up one day and be real surprised when the see the evil their own government has committed in the name of righteousness.

I am aware of everything you said above, and none of it is wrong. Our involvement in WWI was probably a mistake. You're absolutely right about that. That doesn't mean we should have sat out WWII and let an already obscene body count grow even higher. We made mistakes by funding Osama bin Laden and the Taliban when they were fighting the USSR. And yes, we created ISIS. Admittedly, our track record in foreign intervention isn't great. But we're far too into it now to just sit back and watch the world burn from fires we started. I don't know what the solution is in Syria, or if there even is one right now. That doesn't mean I think we should sit back and do nothing as a general rule. We need to explore our options very carefully. In the short term, that may mean doing nothing. But I have a hard time seeing that as a viable long-term solution, especially when this mess has our stink all over it.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Godless

[Guest Godless]

17 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Obviously we didn't learn the right lesson, so we will have to learn it again.  There is no "right way" except to not do it.  You can't just overthrow a dictator, install a "democracy" in a region who's culture, background, ethnicity, people, etc. are completely anti-antithetical to it.  IT DOESN'T WORK.

But we are stupid as a people on this, so we will get into another war in Syria and have to learn this lesson again . . .(sigh) and how much more blood we will have to spill, how much more treasure will we have to spend for us to wake up and realize it.  

I said that I was in favor of getting rid of Saddam. In principle, that was true. Just as, in principle, I believe that Assad ultimately needs to go. I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, and serving three tours in that region confirmed my thoughts on the matter. The way we got rid of Saddam was sloppy, rushed, and not thought out. Taking a similar course in Syria would be a yuge mistake. On that, you and I are in agreement. Where we disagree is on your belief that it's not our problem because our security isn't at stake. If a time comes that a viable option for a regime change presents itself, we should seize it. I don't believe we're there yet, not even close. As I said though, I have no problem with blowing up some airfields and other military targets in the meantime. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

I am aware of everything you said above, and none of it is wrong. Our involvement in WWI was probably a mistake. You're absolutely right about that. That doesn't mean we should have sat out WWII and let an already obscene body count grow even higher. We made mistakes by funding Osama bin Laden and the Taliban when they were fighting the USSR. And yes, we created ISIS. Admittedly, our track record in foreign intervention isn't great. But we're far too into it now to just sit back and watch the world burn from fires we started. I don't know what the solution is in Syria, or if there even is one right now. That doesn't mean I think we should sit back and do nothing as a general rule. We need to explore our options very carefully. In the short term, that may mean doing nothing. But I have a hard time seeing that as a viable long-term solution, especially when this mess has our stink all over it.

I agree with much of this.  I'm not 100% convinced we could have kept out of WW1, given Germany's resumption of unrestricted sub warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram.  (Heaven knows, Wilson tried.). But even if we could have, and WW1 was an undeniable mistake on our part--as of 1940, WW1 was over and done with; and the isolationists who kept saying "We told you not to get involved in Europe!!!" were accomplishing little except for buying time for Hitler to implement his Holocaust and the Imperial Japanese to rape Nanking.

Obviously we should pick our interventions very, very carefully.  But if forced to choose between fighting a regional war every ten or twenty years versus a world war every fifty years--I'll take the regional war every time; even if afterwards I have to deal with foreign policy Pollyannas who insist that world wars would never really happen again (and that even if they did, by cracky, it would be none of 'Murica's business!).

Edited April 9, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

@Just_A_Guy, you always make great points. 

[anatess2]

On 4/8/2017 at 1:53 PM, yjacket said:

Lol . . .now you are starting to come to what I have been saying all along! (and what I've been saying all along a firm 50+1 majority will always get their way, if they want to-see Gorsutch).  There is a difference b/w the vote to pass the bill and a vote to end debate.  2 different votes on 2 different things. You don't need 60 votes to pass, you only need 60 votes to end debate and that only comes into play if 40 people want to filibuster.  As seen with the recent vote, 4 dems crossed over to vote for him.

That's why this is a moot point.  You are advocating that instead of submitting Gorsutch to Congress 2 months ago, Trump should have submitted someone who could get past a possible filibuster.

The point being the Pres. nor the House should build a bill or confirmation worrying about and taking into consideration that it will be filibustered.  You pass the best bill and then wait and see if it does get filibustered.  If it does, then and only then, do you work on a compromise.  That is how the process works.  If it gets filibusted then you get the house/senate together for a compromise bill.  You don't try to compromise before you are at the compromise table.

Again, why are you carrying water for Trump and Ryan?? You are obviously a conservative, but when the guys you like do something that definitely isn't conservative instead of calling them out, you defend them?  Why, I don't get it.

I voted for Trump in the General, but I still think what he has done with Syria is absolutely stupid and not what I voted for and OCarelite was stupid and not what I voted for.  He went in the 1st month from a solid A to now a D in my book.  Just b/c I vote for them, doesn't mean I'm starstruck or mean I defend them to the nth degree.

You are completely not understanding anything I'm saying. 

First:  It is completely different for a Senate to ADVISE AND CONSENT versus to PASS LEGISLATION. 

Gorsuch = Advise and Consent

Healthcare Bill = Pass Legislation.

Advice and Consent is the Senate checking the power of the Executive.  Pass Legislation is the PRIMARY FUNCTION of the Senate.  Removing the Senate Rule of debate to make the Senate a purely PARTISAN body is bad enough for the Advise and Consent function of the Senate.  It's worse to make the Senate become a purely PARTISAN body for its primary function that has the ability to usurp power from the States.

Go and read everything I wrote on that Healthcare Bill thread.  I SAID EXACTLY in that thread what I wanted - which is to get THE CLEAN BILL through the House and let the Senate vote it down AND THEN get the Ryan-Process (which is not a compromise - it is the Republican Healthcare solution split up into 3 different parts to bypass the filibuster).   And here you are reciting back to me what I just said...  Maybe if you try to understand what I'm saying instead of applying prejudice when I disagree with you, we won't be talking over each other.

The fact is - NO DEMOCRAT WILL VOTE FOR REPEAL.  None.  Not even Manchin.  And the Republican solution cannot compromise on Repeal.  You must have figured it out by now with the Gorsuch vote that the Democrats is a pretty united group, the Republican Bill WILL NOT PASS THROUGH THE FILIBUSTER.  That's already a given.  There's no point in expecting otherwise.  You have to pass it AROUND the filibuster.  But, yes, on the Healthcare Bill, they have Obamacare as the ticking time bomb.  So, they need that Clean Bill first to show the people who have been waiting 8 years to repeal Obamacare that the Republicans are united behind a solution - because they're not united on it!  Rand Paul have a completely different solution than John McCain, for example.  So then it is clear what the anti-Obamacare people really want with the run-up to the 2018 campaign season.

And this stupid idea of ... IDEOLOGICAL POSTURING is what is KILLING THE USA.  "I thought you were a Conservative?"  Yes, I am ideologically a conservative.  But the USA is not comprised of ALL CONSERVATIVES.   You can't even win popular vote NOR electoral vote of Conservatives!  Hence, the entirety of government is designed for COMPROMISE.  What use is Conservative Platform in a gridlocked government?  That is why I supported Trump from the get go.  He is not ideological.  Ted Cruz is ideological.  He is the kind of guy that would regulate bathrooms  - like Obama did, but opposite of his.  That is the recipe for GRIDLOCK that has plagued the US since Bill Clinton/Newt Gingrich Administration ended. 

That is why I think you're an extremist!  For you to say Gingrich is not a conservative because he happened to get things done under a Democrat President!  Of course he won't have a purely conservative accomplishment!  He had to work with Bill Clinton and a smidgen of an edge in Republican majority which actually comes up to a minority of conservatives as not all Republicans are conservatives.  I'm a conservative, yes.  But I am not in favor of passing Conservative legislation by breaking the balancing of power protections built into government to do it.  Gingrich MOVED the needle to the right!  That's a great accomplishment!

And that's why Trump/Ryan is the perfect combination.  You got a non-ideological President with a conservative instinct and you got an ideologically conservative House Speaker who values PROCESS as much as ideology.  This is the VEHICLE by which Conservatism is going to BECOME LAW - we MOVE right of center.  Not ANOTHER GRIDLOCK of extreme rights and extreme lefts without anything done in the middle that is the proven result of your ideological extremism.

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

On 4/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, person0 said:

I will name multiple, if just 1 of them is successfully accomplished I would consider it substantial progress:

1)  Pass a formal budget that if followed leads to the eventual complete payment of the national debt. (This is more important than anything else on the list)

Congress has the power of the purse.  Not the President.  In any case, Trump gave Congress a budget for the Executive Branch.  He cut out major budget allotments for things such as the EPA, PBS, etc. etc. and then increased the budget allotment for the military.  You can't pay off the national debt unless Congress removes - or drastically cuts - the Welfare State.

But, there are 2 sides to the budget - revenue and expenditures.  Trump is accomplishing - by leaps and bounds - a projected increase in revenue, even as he can't do anything about expenditures.  This is the reason the DOW is breaking records - that's an indication of a rise in consumer confidence that always results in increased revenue.

On 4/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, person0 said:

I will name multiple, if just 1 of them is successfully accomplished I would consider it substantial progress:

2)  Establish term limits for all elected offices in the Federal Government.

 

The President cannot set term limits.  Congress does.  Congress will not set term limits even with Trump pressuring them to do so because it's just not a popular issue.  Term limits is not the answer to career politicians.  Grassroots movements are.

On 4/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, person0 said:

I will name multiple, if just 1 of them is successfully accomplished I would consider it substantial progress:
3)  Establish a regulation stating that each law must directly relate to only 1 topic.  (To eliminate earmarks and unnecessary fluff in legislation)

Another one that a President cannot do.  Congress does.   I'm seeing a pattern here.

So, I'll help you out with a little bit of a history lesson - back in the early 90's, Congress passed a law to grant the President Line-Item Veto.  This would have effectively give power to the President to do exactly what you're saying here - make a law relate to only 1 topic by vetoing everything else to eliminate pork barrel spending.  Guess what, the Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional.

On 4/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, person0 said:

I will name multiple, if just 1 of them is successfully accomplished I would consider it substantial progress:

4)  Enforce all existing federal immigration laws nationwide.  Also require e-verify type employment checks to enforce existing US employment laws.

Enforcement is being acomplished.  Still fighting the courts on immigration from countries with non-functioning governments.

E-verify is, again, Congress.

On 4/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, person0 said:

I will name multiple, if just 1 of them is successfully accomplished I would consider it substantial progress:

5)  Completely eliminate the Federal Department of Education and return this obligation to the states.

Again... Congress, not President.  President is required, by law, to execute legislation that is currently performed by the DoEd.

This is not a popular solution to the issue, therefore, that will never happen.  For exmple, Reagan tried to pressure Congress to eliminate the DoEd back in the 80's, not too long after it was formed.  Congress didn't even bother putting abolishment on legislation.  Last February, an abolishment bill actually got written by some Republican in the House - this happened while DeVos was being down-voted by some prominent Republicans - well, the abolishment bill only got 7 house congressmen to support it.  7 out of 435.  As you can see, it's not gonna go anywhere.

 

On 4/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, person0 said:

I will name multiple, if just 1 of them is successfully accomplished I would consider it substantial progress:

6)  Repeal all regulations related to Common Core - allow states and local governments to decide.

All done.

By the way, even under Obama, Common Core was NEVER made into federal law.  That has always been left for the states to decide.  Especially after the passing of the ESSA bill (replaced No Child Left Behind) it became even harder for the DoEd to regulate educational standards nationwide.  What Obama did to bypass Congress was do these federal money shell game that gives more fed funding for states complying to Common Core testing.  That's all gone now.

Now that Betsy Devos is the DoEd Secretary, not only will the feds stay away from regulations on standardizaton, they are reworking regulations to promote school choice.

On 4/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, person0 said:

I will name multiple, if just 1 of them is successfully accomplished I would consider it substantial progress:

7)  Eliminate the EPA and return this responsibility to the states.

Same as DoEd - Congress has to abolish it because Congress passed legislation that is currently being executed by the EPA.

Another Congressman tried to pass legislation to eliminate EPA around the same time that bill to eliminate the DoEd was presented.  Same thing - only 7 supporters in the House, out of 435.  So, this is not gonna happen.

But, what Trump HAS done - he put Scott Pruitt as EPA Secretary - Pruitt is the guy that sued the EPA over a dozen times for executive overreach.  So, the EPA is getting dismantled from within.  Trump has written several Executive Orders reversing Obama's EPA orders especially climate change regulations.  Keystone and Dakota Pipelines are back on the board.  He has written EO's to cut regulations by 75%.  His budget proposal to Congress cut a good chunk of budget money out of the EPA.  Thousands of people has resigned from the EPA, they're not getting replaced... etc. etc.  Let's put it this way... we might have to put Leonardo diCarprio on 24/7 security just to make sure he doesn't do anything crazy.

On 4/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, person0 said:

I will name multiple, if just 1 of them is successfully accomplished I would consider it substantial progress:

8)  Eliminate all aspects of the Federal Department of Energy that are not related to national security and return this responsibility to the states.

 

Same thing as EPA and DoE.  This has no popular support.  Not gonna happen.  For example - Nuclear Reactor Regulation - is never gonna be sent to the States especially when you got nuclear power plants like the one in Northeast Ohio that borders Pennsylvania which would put the city of Erie well within the fallout radius...

 

On 4/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, person0 said:

I will name multiple, if just 1 of them is successfully accomplished I would consider it substantial progress:

.
9)  Privatize Social Security, or if not possible, establish a phase-out with transition to a state run model.

Congress.  Not President.

 

On 4/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, person0 said:

I will name multiple, if just 1 of them is successfully accomplished I would consider it substantial progress:

10)  Completely eliminate federal reimbursements to Planned Parenthood, and any other medical provider specializing in abortion, regardless of service performed.

First of all, Trump is required by law (Congress again) to fund welfare non-abortive medical services.  So, to do what you asked would be another Congress thing, not President thing.

In any case, this is partially accomplished.  Trump has eliminated all funding to facilities that perform abortions internationally, as there is no law that states you have to fund international medical services.  As far as domestically, Trump can always write an EO reinstating the Reagan and HW Bush regulations to not fund family planning services that includes abortion as an option (this was wiped out by Clinton and never put back again, not even by W Bush).  He'll have to fight it in the Supreme Court as lawsuits are for sure going to start flying.  This is not how he decided to approach this.  Rather, he.is holding this as a negotiation chip over the Democrats' heads as PP funding is small potatoes especially after putting Gorsuch on the bench.

 

On 4/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, person0 said:

I will name multiple, if just 1 of them is successfully accomplished I would consider it substantial progress:

11)  Pass a balanced budget amendment, allowing Federal Government debt only in times of War.
 

Congress, not President.

 

On 4/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, person0 said:

I will name multiple, if just 1 of them is successfully accomplished I would consider it substantial progress:

12) Eliminate the IRS and instead require each state to pay Federal taxes per-capita, collecting those taxes as they see fit.  Or more realistically establish either the Fair Tax or Flat Tax.

 

Congress, not President.

 

On 4/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, person0 said:

 

I could keep going on and on.  But really the budget is the number one issue.  If the government can maintain or reduce the tax burden and also pay down the debt, this would be amazing progress that would strengthen our country.  By allowing states to remain sovereign on most issues as is their constitutional right, each states will be able to compete for residents, businesses, etc.  If states are competing, Americans will in general enjoy more freedom.  Each state can be a testing ground for legislation and when something fails it can be more easily repaired because it is not failing the country at large.

So, after all that and with the Constitutional protection of the Separation of Powers between the branches of government... do you think that ANY other President - I don't care who and that includes who you voted for - could have made more progress on your issues above? 

Edited April 10, 2017 by anatess2

[person0]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

. . . do you think that ANY other President . . . could have made more progress on your issues above? 

I apologize, it is apparent that you have have inferred from my original statement that I expected the President to be the driving force behind action related the the things in my most recent post.  I agree with you.  The simple answer to your question is no, I do not, and never did.  Elected congressional representatives are the ones holding us back.  The simple fact of the matter remains that I did not Vote for Donald Trump, because I felt a third party candidate better represented my values and opinions, that does not mean I do not support Trump as our President, and it does not mean I believe a different candidate would have made more progress.

The candidates we elect are a reflection of the people.  The unrighteous and uneducated in the USA are growing.  As a result the political spectrum is shifting and taking our laws and our country with it.  Our freedoms are gradually being lost or infringed upon, and those currently in office, rarely uphold the principles of conservatism sufficient to return this country to what I would consider a good place.

 

[anatess2]

18 minutes ago, person0 said:

I apologize, it is apparent that you have have inferred from my original statement that I expected the President to be the driving force behind action related the the things in my most recent post.  I agree with you.  The simple answer to your question is no, I do not, and never did.  Elected congressional representatives are the ones holding us back.  The simple fact of the matter remains that I did not Vote for Donald Trump, because I felt a third party candidate better represented my values and opinions, that does not mean I do not support Trump as our President, and it does not mean I believe a different candidate would have made more progress.

The candidates we elect are a reflection of the people.  The unrighteous and uneducated in the USA are growing.  As a result the political spectrum is shifting and taking our laws and our country with it.  Our freedoms are gradually being lost or infringed upon, and those currently in office, rarely uphold the principles of conservatism sufficient to return this country to what I would consider a good place.

 

Yeah, we were talking about Trump so I inferred Trump's election as what you are seeing as substantial progress.

The thing is, we don't agree (general we, not just you and me) that our elected leaders is a reflection of the values of the people.  For example, I don't agree that a Supreme Court Justice should be labeled Conservative or Liberal.  They should be neither.  I also don't agree that the guy representing me should share the same values as me in the same manner that I don't really much care about the personal lives of the people who work for me - I hire a guy to cut my yard - he can be a cross-dressing Tina Turner impersonator I don't care, as long as he an cut the yard real good.  Same with politicians - if I want to revitalize the US economy, I would rather vote for the guy who cheated on his wife that  I can trust  to revitalize the US economy rather than the squeaky clean guy who has no idea how to revitalize the US economy... that kind of thing.  There are actually a whole lot of people that don't associate with Republicans even as they are ideologically conservative because of this.  This is mostly the reason why Republicans have a hard time getting elected into office during the pre-W Bush years.  Reagan was the exception as he held liberal social views.  Today's decimation of the Democrat Party is caused by the hedonistic culture that has propped up due to the Court's abuse of power and the extreme politicization of government by the Obama administration.  The pendulum has swung too far to the left.  The ideal is, of course, to meet just right of center, and to accomplish that, the pendulum needs to swing a big big arc to the right.

 

[person0]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The thing is, we don't agree (general we, not just you and me) that our elected leaders is a reflection of the values of the people.

Okay.  I just meant the people though, not necessarily only their values, but definitely their apathy/stupidity and lack of self education on important topics.

Quote

For example, I don't agree that a Supreme Court Justice should be labeled Conservative or Liberal.  They should be neither.

Agreed.

Quote

I also don't agree that the guy representing me should share the same values as me in the same manner that I don't really much care about the personal lives of the people who work for me - I hire a guy to cut my yard - he can be a cross-dressing Tina Turner impersonator I don't care, as long as he an cut the yard real good.  Same with politicians - if I want to revitalize the US economy, I would rather vote for the guy who cheated on his wife that  I can trust  to revitalize the US economy rather than the squeaky clean guy who has no idea how to revitalize the US economy... that kind of thing.

Agreed, assuming the scenario you described, but if there is someone I feel can fulfill both requirements, I'm choosing that person instead.

Quote

There are actually a whole lot of people that don't associate with Republicans even as they are ideologically conservative because of this.  This is mostly the reason why Republicans have a hard time getting elected into office during the pre-W Bush years.  Reagan was the exception as he held liberal social views.

Okay.  (Not sure this one requires agreement/disagreement) 

Quote

Today's decimation of the Democrat Party is caused by the hedonistic culture that has propped up due to the Court's abuse of power and the extreme politicization of government by the Obama administration.  The pendulum has swung too far to the left.  The ideal is, of course, to meet just right of center, and to accomplish that, the pendulum needs to swing a big big arc to the right.

Agreed.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 2/1/2017 at 3:13 PM, NeuroTypical said:

He gave a speech at Case Western Reserve University shortly after Scalia passed.  

...The “great project of Justice Scalia’s career was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators. . . .  To remind us that legislators may appeal to their own moral convictions and to claims about social utility to reshape the law as they think it should be in the future. But that judges should do none of these things in a democratic society. That judges should instead strive (if humanly and so imperfectly) to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be – not to decide cases based on their ownmoral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might service society best.”

Welp . . . that speech didn’t age well . . . 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

My son has been telling me for months that Gorsuch was not the slam-dunk SC nomination I have made him out to be. Someone's feeling a bit shamefaced today.