Politics' Official Eighteenth Thread

[HoonDing]

Thanx for reminding me Bulgaria is EU

[smjjames]

 

I find amusing how so many still don't understand that Trump is really different from everything that came before. Just his attitude towards trade, for instance, has clear potential to tank the country's economy in a way that would make the sub prime crisis look like a walk in the park.

Just an FYI on trade, the President does NOT have the constitutional power to impose tariffs. Congress does. The power to do that was given to the Executive by Congress with two laws. One during WWI that allowed the President to use tariffs as a incentive to nations doing business with an enemy of the US during war with that enemy. Then in 1977 another law was passed that extended that privileged to peace time to respond to a "national emergency".

 

Since the President only has that ability at the sufferance of the Congress the Congress can take it back at any time. Small chance of that happening however. Right now it's controlled by Republicans who won't screw their own President (probably). But even if the Democrats take over they won't because someday a Democrat will be President. Maybe even one of them. And they will want that power.

 

For me this is an object lesson in giving the President, or any part of any government a power they should not have. Someday a man like Trump was going to get elected. It was inevitable.

 

 

Spotted in an article (from last year) that what I was thinking of is the part of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 called Section 232. Is that what you meant to refer to? Just wondering if we were talking about the same thing since it sounded like you were talking about the usage of 'national security' as an excuse.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

As you my melancholic assessment: "When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed"

 

Classy.

 

Do you think any of that is wrong?

 

 

 

I just think it's funny in light of an article I recently read, which argues that the ultimate goal of the same special interest groups who uphold Rand as an inspirational figure are also very keen on the Virginia school of economic thought, whose endgame - according to the article's author - is to create the exact situation described in the bolded part of the quote.

 

(Not that I trust any article from a random source - if you happen to know more about Buchanan's work and disagree with his characterization by the author, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.)

 

I had never heard of Buchanan prior to this article. I'll see if the library has any of his books. I'd rather read the mans own words before commenting too much on him. It's obvious the articles author Lynn Parramor  is not out to inform but rather persuade so she will frame any quotes in a context that enables her to do that. I'll give Nancy Mclean's book a look as well. She was the article's primary source. Now as for the quotes in the context they were presented:

 

 

Buchanan, in contrast, insisted that people were primarily driven by venal self-interest. Crediting people with altruism or a desire to serve others was “romantic” fantasy: politicians and government workers were out for themselves, and so, for that matter, were teachers, doctors, and civil rights activists.  They wanted to control others and wrest away their resources: “Each person seeks mastery over a world of slaves,”

 

I don't entirely disagree with this. The very reason I argue that a government's power MUST be limited is because it is comprised entirely of the same selfish, narcissistic, greedy,  and self interested people that left ascribes to "business" people, or "capitalists" of the "rich" (imagine a sneer when you read those words). The difference is they have police powers. They can actually take things away from you. The richest man in the world could not take a single dollar from me that I didn't freely give him. The government if Tipton county right here in my home state, not 20 miles from me can take all of it. They can take my home, all my money and even kill me. So if the most powerful corporation wants my home and I won't sell they go to the government and offer the politicians donations and oh by the way, we really would like to develop this real estate. Next thing you know I lose everything and there is little I can do about it. Who is the bad guy here? The answer is always the one with a gun saying "give me what I want or else" That is what Rand was talking about.

 

 

In 1965 the economist launched a center dedicated to his theories at the University of Virginia, which later relocated to George Mason University. MacLean describes how he trained thinkers to push back against the Brown v. Board of Education decision to desegregate America’s public schools and to challenge the constitutional perspectives and federal policy that enabled it. She notes that he took care to use economic and political precepts, rather than overtly racial arguments, to make his case, which nonetheless gave cover to racists who knew that spelling out their prejudices would alienate the country.

All the while, a ghost hovered in the background — that of John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, senator and seventh vice president of the United States.

 

Notice how she does not actually quote Buchanan here? Just an opinion of a source who wrote a book with nothing to back it up. That of course does not mean the assertion isn't true. But this article is not about informing, it's about discrediting someone with a contrary view. Also notice how she invokes  John Calhoun who was not an economist, not in any way connected to Buchanan and who died 70 years before Buchanan was even born. It would have been no less ludicrous to compare him to Hitler. At least they were from the same century. Like I said, it does not mean she is wrong about Buchanan. But it pretty much ruins her credibility. 

 

Otherwise I agree with her that having a government that does favors for the "rich" is a fast track to oligarchy. But there IS no other kind of government. They all do it because to a man and woman they are venal, selfish, and exactly the kind of people they say they want to protect us all from. Only THEY have guns. By protecting ourselves from the government we are also protecting ourselves from the "evil rich".

 

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

Edited June 5, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Katphood]

Funny how Javad Zarif has a YouTube channel, yet his own people are prohibited from using YouTube.

 

How can I get your godsent messages when I can't even watch a 5 minute video on YouTube? Our government is rotten to the core. But hey, it's not our government anymore, it's China's backyard.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

The very reason I argue that a government's power MUST be limited is because it is comprised entirely of the same selfish, narcissistic, greedy,  and self interested people that left ascribes to "business" people, or "capitalists" of the "rich" (imagine a sneer when you read those words). The difference is they have police powers. They can actually take things away from you. The richest man in the world could not take a single dollar from me that I didn't freely give him. (...)

 

I agree with her that having a government that does favors for the "rich" is a fast track to oligarchy. But there IS no other kind of government. They all do it because to a man and woman they are venal, selfish, and exactly the kind of people they say they want to protect us all from. Only THEY have guns. By protecting ourselves from the government we are also protecting ourselves from the "evil rich".

 

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

 

 

 

I do, I just vehemently disagree with every word of it.

 

The very reason the rich can't take a dollar from you if you hadn't given it freely is that we have laws against that sort of thing, and a police to enforce them.

 

Also, consider this: we have a government which is supposed to safeguard the people's interests. The processes of this can be subverted, but assume we didn't - would anything be better? A weak government may not be subverted by those who would bend it to serve their will, but neither would it have the tools to oppose those people.

[Zoraptor]

Funny how Javad Zarif has a YouTube channel, yet his own people are prohibited from using YouTube.

 

He is the foreign minister though, not the interior minister. Whatever's on youtube is meant for us dirty foreigners and we've already been corrupted by cat videos/ Untergang parodies/ numnut D list celebs gawking at suicide victims/ badly translated Star Wars movies or whatever people use youtube for nowadays.

[Guard Dog]

Aluim a weak government is not no government. I am not an anarchist. A government that does not have eminent domain powers, and whose regulatory, taxation, and police powers curtailed to just their constitutionally defined limits can still enforce the law without having the ability to help one group or another. As long as the politicians in government have favors to sell there will be rich people there to buy them. That happens here no matter which political party is in control and it will never, ever, ever stop. The only logical choke point that people CAN effect is to take the government's power. Less power to do "good" (only as they government defines that you realize) but most importantly less power to do harm. I will trade that everyday of the week.

 

You and I are not going to come to any kind of agreement I get that. But now we each know what the other thinks. 

[Guard Dog]

Under Bush Big Brother was only watching "terrorists" or something. Under Obama it was watching all of us but especially Veterans, Libertarians, and people who owned guns. Under Trump Big Brother has added the media to it's special attention list in addition to all the rest: http://theweek.com/articles/766230/homeland-security-wants-monitor-journalists-time-sound-alarm

 

 

If you find yourself skeptical of this proposal of mass state monitoring of the press, consider yourself a bonafide member of the "tinfoil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy theorists," DHS representative Tyler Houlton said Friday.

[Guard Dog]

Here you go Ben. According to the Obama administration Veteran = Libertarian = Conservative = Gun Owner = Terrorist. It was targeting veterans for increased surveillance that really stung. No one, not even Barack Obama himself has ever done more for this country than the man or woman who volunteered to put their lives on hold and on the line to serve their country. And no one is less likely to come home and harm the country their friends and brothers and sisters in arms died or were wounded for than a veteran. That is something that small little man and his DHS could never comprehend.

 

 

Mr. Thompson’s letter said, “I am particularly struck by the report’s conclusion which states that I&A ‘will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.’ ” He demanded to know what types of activities the Homeland Security Department had planned for “the next several months.”

 

“Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

 

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks.

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/napolitano.apology/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-angers-gop/

Edited June 5, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Bartimaeus]

Did you read the actual report? While perhaps a little overstated at times, I really don't think the unclassified report itself is anything crazy, and certainly does not say anything like "Veteran = Libertarian = Conservative = Gun Owner = Terrorist". The bits on veterans weren't terribly large, and mainly concerned themselves with previous attempts during the 90s to recruit veterans for terrorist activities. If anything, with time, it's (overall) proved a little more true than I would've expected it to have at the time of publishing...

 

(e): My post was directed at Guard Dog.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Aluim a weak government is not no government. I am not an anarchist. A government that does not have eminent domain powers, and whose regulatory, taxation, and police powers curtailed to just their constitutionally defined limits can still enforce the law without having the ability to help one group or another. 

 

But no matter what you do, the government will still have the power to appoint Supreme Court judges, and thus bend or reinterpret those constitutionally defined limits, so... how exactly is this supposed to ensure that they won't have the ability to help one group or another?

[smjjames]

Here's a novel idea, put tariffs/sanctions on Trumps businesses. Don't divest? Other countries get to use your companies as targets.

[smjjames]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/05/media/fox-news-philadelphia-eagles-kneeling/index.html Maybe kneeling in prayer should be banned if Fox is going to mistake it for protesting? heh (sarcasm, and a dig at Fox news)

Edited June 5, 2018 by smjjames

[smjjames]

 

Here's a novel idea, put tariffs/sanctions on Trumps businesses. Don't divest? Other countries get to use your companies as targets.

Pff. And those people have the audacity to call The Donald juvenile and petty?

We will attack you personally for your politics. What's next kidnapping his kid?

No wonder left loves muslims. The terrorist bone is strong in both.

 

 

Maybe you should attack Canada, as it's a Canadian who came up with the idea, not Vox.

 

And the Kurwa bone is strong in both Polish and Liberals.

Edited June 5, 2018 by smjjames

[Malcador]

I thought it was because they were all subbie types

[Guard Dog]

 

Aluim a weak government is not no government. I am not an anarchist. A government that does not have eminent domain powers, and whose regulatory, taxation, and police powers curtailed to just their constitutionally defined limits can still enforce the law without having the ability to help one group or another. 

 

But no matter what you do, the government will still have the power to appoint Supreme Court judges, and thus bend or reinterpret those constitutionally defined limits, so... how exactly is this supposed to ensure that they won't have the ability to help one group or another?

 

There are justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a great example. who decide how they want a case to come out before ever hearing it. Rather than apply the law to the case they try to make the case fit into the law, bending it when needed. Fortunately those have proven to be less common. For the most part judges have been straight forward about applying the law (as they see it).

[Guard Dog]

@ Bart & Ben: Yes I have read it. I, and many other vets were furiously pissed about that ten years ago. And remember, it was ten years ago and must be taken in the context of everything else that was going on at that time. There is no difference between assuming that someone who served in the military, believes in the Federalist system this very country was set up on, doesn't like abortion, owns a gun, or didn't vote for Obama is a likely terrorist than there is assuming a black man in a nice car likely stole it.

[Zoraptor]

Veterans will be looked at for several reasons- they will have expertise and know about explosives, have less qualms about killing people and more tendency towards mental illness- but the main one is that a lot of the domestic terrorism in the US does come from veterans like Tim McVeigh and Terry Nicholls. If you're going to monitor people for terrorism it would be as foolish to exclude veterans just because they're veterans and it's politically inexpedient as it would be to exclude muslims because that's politically inexpedient.

 

Not that I support dragnet monitoring at all, a person's own country is always the biggest threat to a person's liberty because you live there not North Korea or China or wherever, and erosion of liberties at home and government's granting themselves ever enhanced powers are far more than just a trifling concern. But using veteran as a criterion is not a grand conspiracy or anything else, it's based on both history and other genuine risk factors.

[HoonDing]

I'm sure there are some very fine ppl on both the Left and Right.

[Guard Dog]

I am not going to come to any kind of agreement with many of you on this and i have little interest in discussing it in any case because even ten years later I find I am still furiously pissed off about it. The tone suited the Obama administration well in any case. After all they used government agencies such as the IRS as weapons against political opponents, sent armed BLM agents to settle a simple grazing rights dispute by tasing, beating the hell out of and threatening unarmed civilians. And damn near provoked an armed insurrection in the process. They seemed to think it was perfectly OK for the President to order the execution of american citizens with weaponized drones, until people freaked out and they walked that back. 

 

Whatever. Discuss it if you wish. I'm done with it. It was an extremely s----y thing to think and even s------r thing to double down on afterwards.

[ShadySands]

The primaries for governor are really picking up in whatever our state nickname is. On the Dem side we have 3 people each claiming to be the most progressive. Each has a staked out a pet issue of either gun control, education, and healthcare. On the Pub side we have 2 guys trying to out-conservative the other. One guy is just anti everything on the left and the other is attacking him for not being supportive enough of Trump's tax cut. I dunno, maybe he has another thing about him but doesn't really get into it in his commercials and I don't care enough to go to his website or do any research, they're all too far to the right for me anyways.

[HoonDing]

 

had no idea he was librul, but he knows how to rustle rightie feathers

[Gritino]

US politics is pretty dull IMHO.

[Guard Dog]

Like many of you I think CNN has zero credibility. Maybe even a little less. So when I first read this I was skeptical is was true. But then I realized we're talking about Trump here so absurdity is commonplace. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/war-of-1812-donald-trump-justin-trudeau-tariff/index.html

Edited June 7, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

 

There is nothing in the Constitution that says we have to go looking for him.