Politics Episode 7: Remake of Episode 4

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

Left/Right.... yea no.

Here:

Bernie is a commie stooge

Johnson is a stooge.

Hillary is a corrupt opportunist*

Macron is a corrupt opportunist*

All are puppets of the same masters. Only the type of strings are slightly different between the first two who are idealists to a degree and largely ignorant of the strings, and latter two who have no sincere ideals but are quite aware of the masters they serve.

* - will say anything and sell anyone to get what they want.

And who are these mysterious masters? Bilderberg? Nazis? Wall Street? Zionists? Aliens? Lizards? Sesame Street? Scrooge McDuck?

He means the joos, probably reffered to vaguely as "the elites". Or maybe the COMMUNIST COMPUTER GANGSTER GOD. In either case expect to be told to wallow in your ignorance or linked to a youtube video if you don't think either controls the world.

I personally think that all this "they control the world" theories come frome the deep psychological desire for someone to be in control of this. The biggest fear of those people is not that "they" are in control but that no one is in control.

You certainly are correct that there are people who think this way. Many if not most people actually, need answers. It's natural to want them. A lot of people can't handle unknown, so they make things up, believe crap that they're fed, or trust in some others to think for them. They do this in their personal life, and they do it when looking at the world at large.

 

However, I never said 'they control the world', I simply said some folks have masters (in other words, they are puppets), some knowingly and some not. Not even a very controversial thing to say, as most people will acknowledge that politicians are bought and paid for peoples. It's a cliché even. Unfortunately a great many of the same people somehow think their politician isn't (very rarely is this actually the case at a national level, and the four I named most certainly do not qualify as exceptions to the rule). Also, few of these same people take the logic further or follow the money trail as far as it goes. Answers are there if one bothers to look, ugly ones.

 

Ben No. 3 did what he so often does, and thoroughly misinterprets what someone wrote, imagining things are said they are not said. Unfortunately, and sadly not surprisingly, others went with it.

 

Do I think there are people who control everything in the world? Nope. Do I think there are people who want to? Yup. Do I think there are people who wield a great deal more influence than many here would think? Yup. Do I think there are politicians that are perceived to be very powerful that are in actuality not due to being bought and paid for? Yup.

 

None of this is controversial to any truly thinking person, or is in the realm of aliens or other retardisms. 'The man behind the throne' is an age old expression, and more often than not an apt one. One of the main subjects of this last election was: Was politician X compromised by Y? Hell... the main stream media is still relentlessly pushing a 'conspiracy theory' about the current U.S. President being bought and paid for. One that some here are actually buying.

 

I'd like to think you're sharp enough (no pun intended) to realize this, you usually seem to be.

the problem lies with your choice of words. "Master and puppets" implies total control of the master, which then again leads to some sort of conspiracy theory. Furthermore, words like "puppets", "masters", "strings" especially in connection with politics simply have a very high frequency within conspiracy theories. So the misunderstanding is understandable.

 

And if i misunderstand something, tell me, what use does this otherwise have?

[Ben No.3]

 

That; and because conspiracy theories greatly simplifies things, unlike having to understand the world's anarchy.

Simplifies? You don't read many conspiracy theories. Some of them are very sophisticated and complicated.

 

BTW. The most ridiculous conspiracy theory I've heard is the one that there are no conspiracies and all conspiracy theories are crazy talk.

They are simplified; not in the sense that there make events easier to understand, but rather that they paint a clearer picture of good and bad.

[Hurlshort]

The whole point of a conspiracy theory is that it is a rather unlikely scenario, usually involving many moving parts. But they are called theories for a reason, if there was clear evidence to support it then it would no longer be a theory.

[Guard Dog]

Here is a surprise. The SCOTUS has re-instated Trump's travel ban pending a hearing of the case. That injunction was upheld all the way up until the it got to the top, I must say, I am surprised.

 

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a

 

In other news Anthony Kennedy is expected to announce his retirement at the close of this session. That will mean another Trump pick. I can't say that upset's me much. I'd rather it were him picking than Clinton.

[Guard Dog]

I posted this in a previous thread:

 

 

So it looks like Peruta v California is likely to find itself on the Supreme Court docket next year.  This excerpt from the article describes the meat of the issue:

 

Quote

    

    At issue in Peruta v. California is a state law that says conceal-carry permits will only be issued to those persons who have demonstrated to the satisfaction of their local county sheriff that they have a "good cause" for carrying a concealed firearm in public. What counts as a "good cause?" In the words of one San Diego official, "one's personal safety is not considered good cause." In effect, the local sheriff has vast discretion to pick and choose who gets a permit and who doesn't. Because the guidelines are unclear there is a severe risk of arbitrary enforcement. As one previous court ruling on the matter observed, "in California the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table."

 

This is a little different than the previous two gun control cases. In those the issue was complete prohibition of ownership in the home. In those cases the justices (the good ones at least) remembered what "shall not be infringed" means. This is about the issuance of concealed carry permits which has always been at the pleasure of the State. Even in DC v Heller Scalia reaffirmed the latitude on the part of the government for "reasonable restrictions" in the same paragraph he said prohibition is not reasonable.

 

I have to admit to being somewhat torn by this one. On one hand I am very much in favor of allowing citizens in good standing to carry firearms so long as it is done in compliance with the laws of their state. California's oppressive attitude on this issue does not make a lot of sense to me. But on the other hand I VERY much believe it is up to the citizens, voters, and legislators of California to determine how California conducts it's business. The Federal Government and the citizens of other states should mind their own business IMO.

 

So what it comes down to is does the 2nd Amendment which reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." permit carrying arms in public? It has never been interpreted that way before to my knowledge. So for my part I'm going to say no. The Constitution is the supreme law of the US and what it does not specifically cover is reserved for the State (and lower) governments. And California has made it's position of this clear. If you don't like it the remedy should be sought in Sacramento, not on 1st Street in Washington DC.

 

This is an interesting case because folks who are pro-gun rights are also usually pro-states rights and its rare to see those two priorities turned in opposition to each other.

 

One more onion to toss in this stew is the Trump administration is considering a bill to insist on unlimited reciprocity of concealed carry permits in all states. But I'm sure that will mean all states the issue them. I'm actually against this too for the same reasons. Mine is issued in my home state but is honored in every other state in the south except Kentucky. Kentucky has a slightly different standard for issuance. But some states have caliber restrictions and other nuances that differentiate them. Carrying a weapon is a responsibility. It should be incumbent upon the permit holder to research the laws for any state they plan on traveling to. When I was working in Louisville the pistol was under the seat and ammunition locked in the glove compartment. That was the law.

 

Here is the article. This one will be interesting to watch I think. http://reason.com/bl...s-next-big-seco

The Court has declined to take Peruta v. California : http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/us-supreme-court-declines-to-take-up-2nd-amendment-case-look-at-california-law.html

 

So the San Diego "good cause" rule will stand. That is probably for the better. I am not a fan of that rule, but I'm less a fan of the court telling the Sheriff of San Diego county how to enforce the laws the folks in Sacramento passed. This wasn't a gun rights case, despite what Goresuch and Thomas said. The right to keep and bear does not necessarily extend to permission to carry concealed. That is one of those reasonable restrictions Scalia described in Heller. So if the State is in a position to grant a permit the State is in a position to dictate the terms. If you don't like the terms, vote in a new sheriff and a new legislature. Or move to Nevada where a permit isn't even required to carry.

[Wrath of Dagon]

What did Obama threaten them with ?  Other than being back of the queue for deals as well, they're smaller on their own.

Yes, that was a clear attempt to interfere with the election. Britain always had preference before, as one of the closest allies. You'd have to be very naive to think it was just friendly advice.

 

 

About 10 PM on election night when it became clear the Republicans would retain control of both houses of Congress I stopped worrying about Hillary Clinton winning.

I guess you don't care who controls the Supreme Court then. You want 8 more Thomases, you'd get 8 more Ginsburgs. And did you forget all the illegal executive orders Obama issued one after another, regardless of Congress?

[Hurlshort]

So are all the Trump executive orders illegal as well?

[Guard Dog]

So are all the Trump executive orders illegal as well?

So far yes. With two possible exceptions. The travel ban maybe, maybe not. It doesn't sound right to me and 2 out of three courts agree. But that will be sorted out once and for all this Fall. The other involved examining US trade deals for possible renegotiation. To me this is a gray area because trade deals are the responsibility of the Congress. But the executive order in question did not impart any actual authority to change anything. If it did then Trump would be no better than Obama. Since it didn't it really does not amount to much.

 

Obama was setting himself up to be a real American tyrant with his pen and much to my disgust only Rand Paul and Mike Lee ever said a bloody word about it. Bohner and McConell were about as useful as scooping elephant dung with a rake.

 

 

*OK, I fail Reading Comprehension. I thought you said LEGAL, not illegal. Trump has signed 30 executive orders so far. With the two exceptions I named all of them have been to roll back Obama's executive orders.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

 

 

About 10 PM on election night when it became clear the Republicans would retain control of both houses of Congress I stopped worrying about Hillary Clinton winning.

I guess you don't care who controls the Supreme Court then. You want 8 more Thomases, you'd get 8 more Ginsburgs. And did you forget all the illegal executive orders Obama issued one after another, regardless of Congress?

 

I didn't say a Clinton victory would have been desirable. I just would have been less worried about it than if she won and had control over one or both of the Houses of Congress.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So are all the Trump executive orders illegal as well?

None of them are. Executive orders aren't illegal in themselves, they're only illegal if there's no authorization for them under law, or if they contradict the law.

[Hurlshort]

When I said ILLEGAL I was pulling directly from what WoD had said.

 

See I actually agree with WoD quite a bit on this, in terms of executive orders being abused. But I see no difference between the way Trump is using them and the way Obama did. They are both terrible.

 

 And did you forget all the illegal executive orders Obama issued one after another, regardless of Congress?

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by Hurlshot

[Guard Dog]

Using executive action to nullify an executive action strikes me as not only proper but commendable. Especially since almost all of Obama's orders empowered regulatory agencies that are under Congressional oversight. Of course if Congress is going to just sit on it's hands and mutter impotently as the Executive usurps their authority we're already screwed.

[Elerond]

The whole point of a conspiracy theory is that it is a rather unlikely scenario, usually involving many moving parts. But they are called theories for a reason, if there was clear evidence to support it then it would no longer be a theory.

 

It depends on use of word theory, as science for example theories have lots of evidence and proof that they are real, but they are called theories because they focus in understanding how something works instead of practical use of that something.

[Guard Dog]

Conspiracy hypothesis does not roll of the tongue nearly as well.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

The whole point of a conspiracy theory is that it is a rather unlikely scenario, usually involving many moving parts. But they are called theories for a reason, if there was clear evidence to support it then it would no longer be a theory.

 

It depends on use of word theory, as science for example theories have lots of evidence and proof that they are real, but they are called theories because they focus in understanding how something works instead of practical use of that something.

 

No, they're called "theories" because they're not "facts". Any theory may have to be modified/discarded when new observations are made.

[HoonDing]

they're alternative facts.

[Elerond]

 

 

The whole point of a conspiracy theory is that it is a rather unlikely scenario, usually involving many moving parts. But they are called theories for a reason, if there was clear evidence to support it then it would no longer be a theory.

 

It depends on use of word theory, as science for example theories have lots of evidence and proof that they are real, but they are called theories because they focus in understanding how something works instead of practical use of that something.

 

No, they're called "theories" because they're not "facts". Any theory may have to be modified/discarded when new observations are made.

 

 

Theories are adjusted if they don't predict what is observed. Also observations are checked, double and triple checked to limit error caused by people observing, inaccuracies in measurements, elements that observers didn't take in account and so on. But anyway they are called theories because they focus in reason instead of practice. Like for example theoretical medicine focuses on seeking reasons why people get ill and practical medicine focuses on curing people, which often go hand in hand with each other, as curing something without knowing what causes it isn't easy or practical approach and seeking causes of illnesses without seeking ways to cure them isn't necessary best use of the resources.

 

Quoting dictionary here

"In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis'). "

[Wrath of Dagon]

So you dictionary definition confirms what I said, not what you originally stated.

[Hurlshort]

And it also confirms that conspiracy theories are unproven and speculative.

[Elerond]

So you dictionary definition confirms what I said, not what you originally stated.

 

""theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science."

 

"theories have lots of evidence and proof that they are real, but they are called theories because they focus in understanding how something works"

 

How it is in contradiction of what I said?

[Valsuelm]

Here is a surprise. The SCOTUS has re-instated Trump's travel ban pending a hearing of the case. That injunction was upheld all the way up until the it got to the top, I must say, I am surprised.

 

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a

 

I'm curious, why are you surprised?

 

I'd have put a good amount of money on the outcome we've so far gotten, and would put a good amount of money on the 'travel ban' ultimately being reinstated in full, with a possible incoherent dissent from Ginsberg (though I could actually see her even supporting the reinstatement, I wouldn't put too much money on that).

[Guard Dog]

 

Here is a surprise. The SCOTUS has re-instated Trump's travel ban pending a hearing of the case. That injunction was upheld all the way up until the it got to the top, I must say, I am surprised.

 

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a

 

I'm curious, why are you surprised?

 

I'd have put a good amount of money on the outcome we've so far gotten, and would put a good amount of money on the 'travel ban' ultimately being reinstated in full, with a possible incoherent dissent from Ginsberg (though I could actually see her even supporting the reinstatement, I wouldn't put too much money on that).

 

I'm surprised because the only thing being argued here is the injunction. Not the travel ban itself. It's unusual for the the Court to overturn an injunction upheld by two lower courts. Especially since the issue itself is going to be litigated pretty quickly. An injunction usually preserves the status quo until the case is heard for real. Courts tend to like to do that. The only standard there is to meet is does the party applying for the injunction have a realistic chance to prevail.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

 

Left/Right.... yea no.

Here:

Bernie is a commie stooge

Johnson is a stooge.

Hillary is a corrupt opportunist*

Macron is a corrupt opportunist*

All are puppets of the same masters. Only the type of strings are slightly different between the first two who are idealists to a degree and largely ignorant of the strings, and latter two who have no sincere ideals but are quite aware of the masters they serve.

* - will say anything and sell anyone to get what they want.

And who are these mysterious masters? Bilderberg? Nazis? Wall Street? Zionists? Aliens? Lizards? Sesame Street? Scrooge McDuck?

He means the joos, probably reffered to vaguely as "the elites". Or maybe the COMMUNIST COMPUTER GANGSTER GOD. In either case expect to be told to wallow in your ignorance or linked to a youtube video if you don't think either controls the world.

I personally think that all this "they control the world" theories come frome the deep psychological desire for someone to be in control of this. The biggest fear of those people is not that "they" are in control but that no one is in control.

You certainly are correct that there are people who think this way. Many if not most people actually, need answers. It's natural to want them. A lot of people can't handle unknown, so they make things up, believe crap that they're fed, or trust in some others to think for them. They do this in their personal life, and they do it when looking at the world at large.

 

However, I never said 'they control the world', I simply said some folks have masters (in other words, they are puppets), some knowingly and some not. Not even a very controversial thing to say, as most people will acknowledge that politicians are bought and paid for peoples. It's a cliché even. Unfortunately a great many of the same people somehow think their politician isn't (very rarely is this actually the case at a national level, and the four I named most certainly do not qualify as exceptions to the rule). Also, few of these same people take the logic further or follow the money trail as far as it goes. Answers are there if one bothers to look, ugly ones.

 

Ben No. 3 did what he so often does, and thoroughly misinterprets what someone wrote, imagining things are said they are not said. Unfortunately, and sadly not surprisingly, others went with it.

 

Do I think there are people who control everything in the world? Nope. Do I think there are people who want to? Yup. Do I think there are people who wield a great deal more influence than many here would think? Yup. Do I think there are politicians that are perceived to be very powerful that are in actuality not due to being bought and paid for? Yup.

 

None of this is controversial to any truly thinking person, or is in the realm of aliens or other retardisms. 'The man behind the throne' is an age old expression, and more often than not an apt one. One of the main subjects of this last election was: Was politician X compromised by Y? Hell... the main stream media is still relentlessly pushing a 'conspiracy theory' about the current U.S. President being bought and paid for. One that some here are actually buying.

 

I'd like to think you're sharp enough (no pun intended) to realize this, you usually seem to be.

the problem lies with your choice of words. "Master and puppets" implies total control of the master, which then again leads to some sort of conspiracy theory. Furthermore, words like "puppets", "masters", "strings" especially in connection with politics simply have a very high frequency within conspiracy theories. So the misunderstanding is understandable.

 

And if i misunderstand something, tell me, what use does this otherwise have?

 

 

You would do well to undo your belief that 'conspiracy theory' is a pejorative. Do that, pay attention, think, learn yourself a good deal more history (use primary sources whenever possible), think, be willing to admit you're wrong (embrace it when you are), think, be willing to admit you've fallen for lies (a very hard thing for many to do), be well aware of what you do not know, think, stand firm on what you do know (not what you believe, what you actually know for fact 1000%), and not only will you see more clearly in all things, the world will open up to you.

 

As for misunderstanding things: do your best to not insert words into other's mouths or make assumptions. If you're unsure, ask, wait and see, or just realize you're unsure. A lot of people are mentally boxed in, willingly. The very reason I made the post you're responding to was to set something a little more straight than was previously being discussed. Tip: don't look at things as left or right, or in just about all cases outside of binary math, in any kind of binary way. It's a common way to think yet horribly small minded, and you'll miss quite a lot of what's really happening if you think that way, in politics, in everything else involving human behavior, and a great many other things as well.

 

There is far more at play than many here (or anywhere) choose to attempt understand. You're young. That coupled with the fact that you're here in this thread tells me that you have oodles of potential. It's good that you're actively engaged, but don't jump the gun. You aren't on equal ground with everyone here. Not all opinions are equal. You're already standing taller than some, but shorter than others. That's more than perfectly ok, just make sure you grow. Always remember it can be hard to tell who is who and what is what on a forum where you can't look someone in the eyes. If you adhere to the advice I gave above though, you'll get much better at telling, everything.

 

[Hurlshort]

And wear sunscreen.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Here is a surprise. The SCOTUS has re-instated Trump's travel ban pending a hearing of the case. That injunction was upheld all the way up until the it got to the top, I must say, I am surprised.

 

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a

 

I'm curious, why are you surprised?

 

I'd have put a good amount of money on the outcome we've so far gotten, and would put a good amount of money on the 'travel ban' ultimately being reinstated in full, with a possible incoherent dissent from Ginsberg (though I could actually see her even supporting the reinstatement, I wouldn't put too much money on that).

 

I'm surprised because the only thing being argued here is the injunction. Not the travel ban itself. It's unusual for the the Court to overturn an injunction upheld by two lower courts. Especially since the issue itself is going to be litigated pretty quickly. An injunction usually preserves the status quo until the case is heard for real. Courts tend to like to do that. The only standard there is to meet is does the party applying for the injunction have a realistic chance to prevail.

 

 

That's not the only standard. Another is will a party be harmed by the injunction? Does the injunction itself even have legal merit? There's a number of factors at play.

 

That said, if we assume for the sake of argument that you're correct: that "The only standard there is to meet is does the party applying for the injunction have a realistic chance to prevail.", I think the answer to that is a resounding No in any court that actually holds the U.S. Constitution with any regard at all, and has justices that are at least semi-objective.

 

The U.S. Federal government is going to win this case with at least a 6-3 margin (very possibly 9-0 even), and I'll happily take bets such as the one Leferd and I previously had on this.