Guard Dog

Give 'em hell!

Doesn't our trade agreements with Canada and Mexico prevent such shenanigans? Or have we finally reached the point when saying "The President can't do ______" is pointless?

Congress can stop this at any time. That is THEIR power he's abusing. My biggest hope for a Trump Administration would be for Congress to recall that it is in fact a co-equal branch of the government and looking the other way when the executive does things the executive cannot do is unacceptable. Still waiting on that one. Some of them do get it... not enough on either side though

I would not describe my relationship with democracy as love-hate. I'm not ambivalent at all about it... it's terrible system for selecting leaders. It just happens to be better than all the others. You vote hoping you get an Augustus, end up with a Caligula and just thank God it wasn't a Tiberius. I figure honest and ethical leadership is likely too much to hope fore from either political party anymore. Let's face it... all the good people are getting real jobs. But ironically the democratic process is moving steadily in the direction of drug legalization over the explicit objections, threats, and attempts to undermine by those exact same lawMAKERS (emphasis yours) who won during the same elections. Marijuana legalization (to one degree or another) won more states than Hillary Clinton did in '16. Booze is perfectly legal and people are still forbidden to fly or drive under it's influence. MJ is legal in CO & AK and it's still illegal to use it and drive. What's the problem? Last point, in response to your first, just because a thing is democratically popular or decided on does not exempt it from criticism, resistance, disobedience (civil or uncivil as a last resort) by people with an approving conscience or a moral objection or just a bug up their rear about it. After all American slavery was both legal and democratically popular. Just an aside. Liberty is not the child of democracy. Nor vice versa. They are like cousins at best. You definitely want both. If you have one you are more likely to get the other but they can exist without each other as well. But Liberty without democracy is fleeting. Democracy without liberty is indistinguishable from tyranny.

I cleaned out the camper, had a few drinks and ordered some books on my Kindle and a few "real" ones too.

That is only a problem because some things are arbitrarily illegal and other things are not. Maybe it should be no one's business what you put in or do with the body you supposedly own. I'm certain I recently heard abortion advocates say much the same thing.

I don't care who my leaders pray to, have sex with, dress like, or eat/drink/use in their free time. All I want from them is to do their damn jobs and leave me the f--k alone. Don't take any more of my money than the barest minimum the law requires. Don't tell me what I can/can't read/watch/listen to/ believe in. My home and my property are exclusively mine. Stay the f--k away and don't bother me about what I do there. If they do all that I don't care if they are fundamentalist Muslim, gay atheist, or bible thumping Pentecostal minister with a secret cocaine habit.

Assuming we even have a choice. We both cast votes in states where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Unless you know a way to reprogram the simulation so we actually can rescue the ship. Of course I didn't vote for either so I'm cool with the guy in the mirror. Not voting for either D or R in '20 or ever again for that matter. Now when it comes to the make up of Congress we do have a little more control. Just a little. I like my Congress in opposition to the Presidents. If only they would find the back bone to actually take back power ceded to the executive. Like tariffs. Of course they won't because all 535 of them dream of having that power themselves one day. Like I've said before, there are no saints in hell

Leaving tomorrow morning for Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park in MO for five days of camping and fishing and watching Sunny & Bella's high jinks. See y'all when I get back!

Grom & Bruce: Would you rather be stung by a scorpion of bitten by a snake. Trading one bad for another is no bargain. Besides sooner or later you know this country was going to elect an utter idiot. I thought we already had, turns out I was wrong. Maybe we got that out of our system now.

I'd go back to the Jurassic age and stomp on some butterflies

This is not a joke. This is for real. Makes sense I guess. She would have a lot to say about the effective disposal of non-volatile memory devices.

Gromnir if it makes you feel any better you would be in exactly the same place you are now had the coin landed the other way in 2016. As much as you value integrity, ethics, character, and adherence to law it could not end any other way for you. There is absolutely nothing in the history of Hillary Clinton or the people around her to suggest her administration would not be one of hubris, executive overreach, and malfeasance. The difference being she's a lot more adept at keeping things quiet. Rather than the roaches on the walls and counter tops we have now they would be behind the oven and in the pantry. But you better believe we'd still be hip deep in roaches.

We went wrong when the executive did things that were beyond the enumerated powers of the office and the legislature did nothing. Does anyone have a time machine I can borrow? I'm going to go back to 1911 and kidnap Teddy Roosevelt. If he's not around Taft would be re-elected, WW2 would never happen and maybe... just maybe, the Executive branch of the US would not be out of control.

How petty is this??? https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-wanted-uss-john-mccain-out-of-sight-during-trump-japan-visit-11559173470

Jesse Dougherty is the Nats beat writer for the Washington Post. I've been a subscriber to the post for years on my Kindle and I've always liked it. But the quality is slipping and here is an example of why. Dougherty ran a column yesterday about a kerfuffle involving the Nats AAA affiliate, the Fresno Grizzlies. During their Memorial Day in-game ceremony they ran a video with pictures of the "enemies of freedom" of some such. AoC's pic was included with Kim Jong Il, and an assorted cast of bad guys. It was a pretty stupid thing to do and the team and person who made the video have apologized. Dougherty opined the person should be fired and if the Grizzlies won't do it the Nats should step in and do it. Just one problem: the Nats have no ownership interest in the Grizzlies. Like 90% of minor league teams they are a privately owned and operated entity. The Nats could no more have that guy fired than they could call my boss and have me fired. Now, I bring all this up because Dougherty published something that was not only wrong it was dumb. And no one caught it. He's been the beat writer for the Nats for 10 years and does not even know how the business he reports on works. His editors didn't catch it. The problem with the media isn't that they knowingly publish false information. It's that they UNKNOWINGLY publish false information. I'm pointing this one thing out as an example. Many journalists bemoan the loss of trust in their profession. But they refuse to see they are the only ones who can undermine their own credibility. Just my $.02. I'd post a link to the column but it's behind a paywall

Unfortunately that stopped being important the day the political factions (not parties) in the country realized the court was a way to get something they wanted through the back door rather than through the front door of the legislature. Sometimes the justices are willing to do that, sometimes they are not.

Of course. Mostly certainly isn't all the time. I seriously doubt there has been one you agree with more than 75% of the time in all the years you've studied them.

There is no way to know where Garland would have come down on this or anything. But my best guess he is one who would have sided with LE 9 times out of 10. Just a guess though. As for you point on US vs Miller and AR-15's being more likely to be protected I beat you to it: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/109120-politics-and-statesmenship-a-forum-special-report/?do=findComment&comment=2156851

Hey you've seen me say nice things about Ginsburg as a consistent 1st Am champion and Sotomayor as a consistent 4th Am champion. They are both much less reliable on other things. As much as I respect Thomas on 2nd, 5th, 10th, & 14th Am issues I am far from with him 100% of the time. I'm not going to find agreement with the reasoning of any of them all the time. But with Goresuch more than the others I find myself saying "that's right!". Also Kagan and Breyer are both "liberal" (what does that word even mean anymore) and found against the plaintiff. Of course has Kagan ever found against a government authority on anything other than the "muslim ban" thing? Not that I can remember

Now reading:

Every President has a guy who tried to put a spin on stupid things Presidents say (or tweet in this case). Dunno who it is for Trump but he's got his work cut out for him after this one!

There is no one on this board who thinks less of Trump than I do. But I am so freaking glad he won this election. This is one big reason why: https://reason.com/2019/05/29/dissenting-from-a-decision-blocking-a-retaliatory-arrest-claim-neil-gorsuch-notes-that-almost-anyone-can-be-arrested-for-something/ The "good guys" might have lost this one but Goresuch was on the right side. Garland, I seriously doubt he would be. Presidents come and go, but judges can f--k you over for a generation or more.

This is a pretty good read from Ted Gup. The Washington Post had it yesterday. I read one of his books a while back. In short he wants to move to Great Britain because he does not recognize the US anymore. He seems to think the election of Trump represents a fundamental shift in the attitudes of the US. I would not encourage or discourage him or anyone else from any course of action. But it is an error to look at the outcome of any election as an indication of a change in American attitudes. As we have gone on at some length here about voters only had two realistic choices to be President in 2016. Both were deeply flawed and both unacceptable to a very, very large number of people. And even if that were not the case you cannot separate the election of one candidate from the candidacy of the losing side. This person had as much to do with Trump winning as anyone did: Trump is President today because more people found her unacceptable than they did him. She has been in political office for 16 years and in politics for thirty. You know what you are getting with her. It wasn't something good to most folks. Trump was a known name but he'd never held office. You didn't know he was going to be an impulsive dolt who has no idea what he is doing and couldn't find the truth if it were painted on the wall in front of him .But you KNEW Clinton was dishonest, mean-spirited, and most damning of all, obsessed with political power. You can't fault them for choosing door number two. Or door number one because they DIDN'T want the unknown but definitively crass and loud alternative. No matter who won in 2016 the 45th President was going to be a bad one. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-got-my-trump-card-will-i-use-it-to-leave-the-us/2019/05/27/eb347a1c-7d7c-11e9-8ede-f4abf521ef17_story.html?utm_term=.9124d00f9ff8

OK, the short strokes of a long story: In early 2016 the Clinton Campaign and the DNC hired a company called Fusion GPS for opposition research on Trump's camp. Fusion GPS used a former MI-6 agent named Christopher Steele to do the work. The Steele Dossier is the genesis of the whole Trump-Russia thing. He is the one who said Russia was helping Trump get elected and that Russian intel & the Trump Campaign were working together to win the election. After the election Steele and Fusion continued to research and send info to British and American intel. Now, Fusion does not work for free and the election was over so who is paying for this? The CIA didn't take it seriously because the Steele Dossier was unverifiable and is some respects, not credible. The FBI seems to have believed every word of it and they got warrants, wiretaps, and a full on investigation. That is pretty much what you would expect the FBI to do. Kinda why they are even a thing. You have heard the term "Crossfire Hurricane", and not the Rolling Stones song, that is it. Now, was this an investigation or a political witch hunt? I tend to think it was more the former. The FBI is not and has never been apolitical (nice dress there J Edgar). And some of it's agents and even directors have used the agency for political advocacy under the guise of law enforcement activity. So did that happen here? That is where we are. I don't know, but I kind of doubt it. You know me, I have less than zero faith in the fidelity and abilities of our Federal agencies. I have no doubt at all the Obama admin would encourage the FBI to help his tribe. I have no doubt they would be willing. But after the election, using dubious info to try and take down a President KNOWING it was false? I have a hard time buying that one. Sounds like a Brad Thor novel. If they were pursuing the matter after the investigation I think they thought there was something there. Strictly my opinion there. When the whole thing hit the news Russia denied everything loudly... too loudly. It made the Trump Camp look worse but Russia is playing it's own game. Like Gromnir has expounded on at length their aim was likely to undermine faith in our electoral system. IMO they needn't have bothered. The DemocRATs and RATpublcans are doing a fine job of that all by themselves. The Mueller Report has since debunked the idea of Trump colluding with Russian intel. But it's no joke the Russians did try to play a role. I'm a little iffy on this on though You can't actually "steal" and election in the US. It's too decentralized. And I don't think hacking a private entity like the DNC is election tampering. It's just a plain old cyber crime. And besides. as O have said before, had the people who actually worked in the DNC exercised even a modicum of professionalism in their communications those leaked e-mails would have amounted to nothing. Edit: The FBI investigation did not begin with Steele. It was going on a year before that. IIRC Trump becoming a target was a result of the Steele Dossier.