monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

It's a near certainty these people are going to provoke constitutional crises, more than one.

What constitution? Haven't you already said that it will be revoked and abolished by Trump within the week?

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

From the NYT piece noted above:

Quote:
The Russian dissident and chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov drew upon long familiarity with that process when he tweeted: “The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”

Isn't that interesting. I was going to quote that as well to talk about what this entire thread is and has been.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

What the constitution CLEARLY says is that the 2nd amendment refers to arms for militias, not a general right. That you think differently is of no bearing. It' an opinion, not a fact, and is subject to change, as SCOTUS did when they reinterpreted it, going against 200 years of judicial OPINION in Heller, which is also OPINION, NOT FACT, made by conservative activist judges and is dependent on the makeup of the court.

Holy **** balls are you misguided. It clearly states that BECAUSE of the militia, the PEOPLE have rights to keep and bear arms. It has jack and **** to do with arming militias.

0 Replies

Still haven't heard a single word from any lefty here that even mentions, let alone condemns, the violent mob who tried re-write the constitution insofar as it gives free speech rights to people whose views they want to suppress, eh?

Well, there was one indirect comment, I guess, but it only attacked Milo as a troll.

The media has almost universally attempted to somehow legitimatize the assault. They say Milo is a white supremacist, extreme right-winger, a racist etc. He doesn't provide a "safe space," so the snowflakes are subjected to imminent "danger." He commits "micro-aggressions," which therefore justify counter-aggression in strict "self-defense." One professor posted, for all his students to see, a notice that "The only proper response to micro-aggression is MACRO-aggression."

And then they call anyone who rejects their violent tactics an "authoritarian." Go figure.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I perceive no violations of those or any other parts of the Constitution by Mr. Trump.
Ill start with the First Amendment. (Not focusing on the religious school issues but the overall"Free expression clause" and the "establishment clause" which sort-of Set out the "rules" by which religion may be practiced in this country and how religion and government are to be separate, as envisioned by the framers.

In essence there is guaranteed a freedom of and FROM religion within the US, as well as"There shall be " no FAVORED religions "established" by the state.

TRUMP in his campaign and in one recent post- inauguration tweet, said that he will bring back prayer in public schools. That would be in-violation of all Supreme Court(1st amendment) Decisions in the mid 20th to early 21st centuries which state, that there is no "Favored religion" and must be none under fed judges and Supreme Curt rulings.
So hed be in direct violation of those Supreme Court decisions. (Unless, of course, like his knowledge of the life of Frederick Douglas, he just don' know ****" about history and how our constitution works.

So let me get this straight so I understand it.

You are claiming that Trump is breaking the 1st amendment based on something he might do based on a tweet?

Do you imagine a bunch of jack booted thugs with T's on their arms making kids pray in every school? Is that what you think might happen and because your imagination is so vibrant Trump has broken the first amendment?

Are you sniffing too much natural gas in the field?

3 Replies

@McGentrix,

Response moderated: Personal attack. See more info.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Trump is insane; he wants to force language onto the American people. That's not democracy; it's insanity.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-just-made-huge-announcement-about-his-plans-for-the-word-christmas-shock/

Once again proving, he doesn't understand our Constitution.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Isn't that interesting. I was going to quote that as well to talk about what this entire thread is and has been.

Well damn, you clearly have me there. Truth-annihilation is my thing. It's why I quote liberals and conservatives here. It's why I always link to sources and why I note with ellipses or brackets where portions are omitted or where some word/phrase has been added for clarification. All standard misinformation techniques of the propagandist.

Where Kasparov's quote gets it wrong (though he may elsewhere have said something else) is "push an agenda". That isn't evidence of a propaganda enterprise though such enterprises will feature that. For example, the AMA's project to reduce smoking by the American public or the long term project of American leaders to build and enhance public education or any health awareness project by medical or government officials (wash your hands, get a flu shot), or civil rights projects or the push to get women the vote, etc etc.

To get to "propaganda" the presence of a knowing and dedicated intention to misinform is necessary.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

you are apparently not listening to the words of your "colleague" oralloy who has entered a proposal that Trump is for him BECAUSE he seems to honor the way the second Amendment is now interpreted.
Yet ORALLOY dismisses any of the other Amendments that Trump ants to trample upon.
Surely you can understand the simple directional bifurcation in his logic ?

Oralloy has consistently been one dimensional.

Quote:

You are claiming that Trump is breaking the 1st amendment based on something he might do based on a tweet?

I never aid that he "as breaking " the first Amendment. I implied that he doesnt seem to have the same respect for a number of th other amendments, and by saying that I further implied that Oralloy was rather unidimensional,(A 1 issue voter)

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Heres the post which you were trying to miscast .
ORLLOY SAY:

Quote:

It sure is nice to have a President who respects the Second Amendment

But he seems to be having trouble mustering up the same commitment to the
1st
4th
5th
9th
10th
14th
15th
17th
24th
and 26th

1 Reply

Re the 2nd amendment, let me just point out that humanity came near to extinction following the Bowling Green Massacre and IT WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IF GREENERS HAD GUNS.

Fact.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

To get to "propaganda" the presence of a knowing and dedicated intention to misinform is necessary.

Yeah, right, eh?

Quote:

Definition of propaganda

2>: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

It aint the verity of the content, or lack thereof, that's makes anything "propaganda." It's the intended purpose.

That said, YOUR idiosyncratic definition of "propaganda" does indeed accurately describe YOUR postings here.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Heres the post which you were trying to miscast .
ORLLOY SAY:

Quote:
It sure is nice to have a President who respects the Second Amendment

But he seems to be having trouble mustering up the same commitment to the
1st
4th
5th
9th
10th
14th
15th
17th
24th
and 26th

To which you replied with an example and I replied on to you. Oralloy is a single purpose voter. The 2nd amendment is very important to him and his political opinions. Surely you have noticed that. I agree with him that the Democrats want to violate the 2nd amendment. I see it being done in New York State repeatedly.

You say that "TRUMP in his campaign and in one recent post- inauguration tweet, said that he will bring back prayer in public schools." Do you foresee him forcing this issue or do you foresee, possibly, him giving that decision back to the states? Or are you one of those religious extremists that has an all or none thing going on?

The Federal Government has no rules to govern how schools teach. There is nothing in the Constitution, the rules for the federal government, that states it should be in charge of education.

What is it, exactly, that you fear Trump will actually do in regards to this issue?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

In essence there is guaranteed a freedom of and FROM religion within the US, as well as"There shall be " no FAVORED religions "established" by the state.

I'm not aware of such an additional right. I'm only aware of the rule prohibiting favoritism.

However, I do not have the same level of expertise on the First Amendment that I have on the Second, so I acknowledge the possibility that what you refer to might exist despite me not being aware of it.

I am confident that Mr. Trump will comply with whatever the courts ultimately rule on his programs. If the Supreme Court ultimately strikes down some program of his, he may send out a series of vituperative tweets, but he will comply with their ruling.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Yes, I recall those words from the document: "All decisions must be arrived at by a Republican majority on the court; Democratic opinions will be overturned."

It's not so much that the Constitution favors one party over another.

Rather, it is the fact that the Republicans tend to uphold the Constitution, and the Democrats tend to violate the Constitution.

hightor wrote:

That's nonsense. It's not revealed scripture; it's a political document.

Not in any way nonsense. The Constitution has a very clearly established meaning.

The fact that the Democrats hate the Constitution does not change this reality.

hightor wrote:

If it had its own "established meaning" we wouldn't get 5-4 decisions.

There is some room for interpretation within that established meaning. However, the main reason for 5-4 decisions is that the Democrats pack the courts full of judges who maliciously allow the Constitution to be violated.

hightor wrote:

We wouldn't even need a court, we'd simply go with the "established meaning".

The job of the court is to enforce that established meaning.

And keep in mind that there is a little bit of room for interpretation within the bounds of the Constitution's established meaning.

hightor wrote:

The only way a 200 year old set of legal guidelines can continue to have relevance is if the document's interpretation reflects our society's evolution.

Wrong. Those 200 year old rules have relevance because they are the primary laws of the nation.

hightor wrote:

The fact that we have had a conservative majority on the court for some time only reflects the fact that conservatives have been in office when there were vacancies to fill.

The nation is lucky for it too. Your own post here is evidence that the Democrats hate the Constitution and mean to destroy it.

hightor wrote:

It doesn't enshrine "originalism" or "strict constructionalism" as a guiding judicial principle.

Doing what the Constitution actually says doesn't "need" to be enshrined. It already is enshrined. The concept of doing what the law actually says is not a new one.

hightor wrote:

The court's current reigning philosophy is the result of political activity.

Yes. It was politically necessary to protect the nation from the Democrats before they destroyed our Constitution.

hightor wrote:

The unprecedented refusal to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland proves that the constitution has no "established meaning".

The notion that it is unprecedented is silly. The Democrats picked that fight, and they got a dose of their own medicine.

And no, the fact that the Republicans rescued the Constitution from the Democrats is not evidence that the Constitution has no meaning.

hightor wrote:

At least not one that conservatives feel any need to honor.

On the contrary, by preventing the Democrats from destroying the Constitution, the Republicans showed that they care very deeply about protecting it.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Read this article.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-just-made-huge-announcement-about-his-plans-for-the-word-christmas-shock/

Trump is an ignoramus, and proves it with every EO.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/stasi-trump-conway-devos-age-ignorance-article-1.2964395

0 Replies

Quote:

Charles P. Pierce ‏@CharlesPPierce 2h2 hours ago
Super Bowl Update: flag to be presented by survivors of the Bowling Green Massacre. Lady Gaga replaced at halftime by Frederick Douglass.

0 Replies

@blatham,

I do enjoy your unselfconscious condesension on these matters.

Quote:

Trump may prevail in this. That's a probability acknowledged by various voices on the left (who have a grasp of the legal issues) though not all.

The obvious implication is that only informed voices on the left can understand this, etc. My understanding ( from a reliableand informed legal source) is that the issue is chrystal clear and beyond doubt. Indeed Obama has addressed related issues in substantially identical Excecutive Orders, without objection, doing so at the Request of Raul Castro. The Constitutional Power involved, unquestionavbly belongs to the President.

There were no "graphs" in my last post and I made no assertion that opponents of the President must "set aside their values" . I did observe that they were attempting to nullify the election result , but that is self evident.

You suggest our elected President is a "lunatic" and that the notion that acceptance of his authority , "isn't going to happen" sounds a bit like a threat? Is that your meaning? I recognize you will likely continue your crusade to propagandize against him, however I see that more as an indication of your own peculiar deliusions of grandeur and self importance than a threat to my country. You increasingly indulge in what appear to be orders to your followers here "You must read this" ; "If you read anything today read this"; etc , Such little habits of expression can sometimes be an indicator of the inner drives of the speaker. Are those yours?

I went days at a time without thinking about Steven Harper and go even longer without thinking about Justin Trudeau ( the last thought occurred as I read a report of his sappy, juvenile eulogy of Fidel Castro a few weeks ago). Why are you so interested and obsessed with the affairs and leaders of a country not your own?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Why are you so interested and obsessed with the affairs and leaders of a country not your own?

Either it is a love affair or I'm being paid. Take your pick.

1 Reply

Quote:

Ryan LizzaVerified account
‏@RyanLizza
Where we are: Twitter is filled right now with the Chomskyite left defending Mike Pence's moral relativism on Russia.

I haven't seen this (because of who I do and do not follow) but I'd already guessed it would be happening.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know