As I have previously discussed, my house is hosting over a dozen family and friends who have come from around the country to join the protests today as part of the “Women’s March” in Washington. We know at least a dozen more local friends attending. I will not be one of them as I explained earlier. I respected those marching today for values that mean so much to them . . . and to many of us. There is obviously going to a sizable crowd — one that may dwarf the Inauguration attendance. I did note that, when I dropped off my brother Chris and his family this morning, the metro in McLean seemed much more crowded than it did yesterday for the Inauguration. Having spent a few days with protesters and celebrants at the Inauguration, I am struck by how hardened both sides are toward each other . . . and dismissive of the operative facts underlying this election. Both sides seem unwilling to recognize the flaws in their past positions while grotesquely distorting their view of the other side. It reminds me of Richard III and the advice of the Queen Mother, Margaret, on how to learn to hate as she sought to “teach thee how to curse.” It is simple, she explains, just “Think that thy babes were sweeter than they were, And he that slew them fouler than he is.”
Having spent time with both people supporting and protesting Trump, I have been saddened by the level of hate and lack of objectivity in conversations. Indeed, unless you demonize or idolize Trump, you are viewed as out of touch or naive or suspect in your views. Hillary is now sweeter than she was and Trump fouler than he is.
What is striking to me is how many have forgotten what brought about this election. Hillary Clinton is now portrayed as a selfless feminist and progressive who was defeated by angry white men despite the fact that she did worse with women than the prior two elections and barely won the female vote. While Trump is (correctly) criticized for failing to turn over his tax records, it is forgotten that Clinton refused to turn over her Wall Street speeches. While Trump is (correctly) criticized for contradictions in the media, it is ignore that Clinton continually changed her account for such issues as her reckless use of a personal server or other accounts. That is why I was highly critical of both candidates.
The reaction to the Inauguration speech was a good example of the hardening and loss of objectivity on both sides. I thought the speech was not particularly strong and did not offer a positive unifying theme. In the end, I thought it was a lost opportunity for Trump to transcend the campaign rhetoric in favor of an outline for his new approach to the nation’s problems and divisions. Yet, we have seen Trump supporters unwilling to even consider shortcomings in the speech while Clinton supporters like Chris Matthews bizarrely portray the speech as having “Hitlerian” elements. Likewise, when a friend who protested at the Inauguration criticized Trump supporters for mocking or disrespectful comments, I noted the over 200 arrested anti-Trump supporters and the property damage to the city. That ended the conversation. It is again all or nothing. Blue or Red. Again, to paraphrase Queen Margaret, one has to remember one’s friends as better than they were and one’s foes as worse than they are.
The Democrats had an opportunity to learn from this defeat. Clinton and Trump were the most unpopular politicians ever to be nominated for president and over 60 percent of voters viewed Clinton as fundamentally dishonest. Clinton has always had extremely high negatives and was carrying more baggage than Greyhound when the establishment effectively anointed her as their candidate. As shown by leaked emails, DNC figures like Debra Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile worked against Bernie Sanders who presented precisely the populist campaign that many voters were looking for. Clinton had the Democratic establishment and many allies in the media — everyone agreed except the public. That was enough . . . until the voters had their say on November 8th. What is remarkable is how successful the Democratic establishment has been not only keeping their same leadership like Nancy Pelosi in place but convincing Democrats that (as suggested by Bill Clinton) it was just angry white men who determined the election. It is the same identity politics that led to the defeat. The effort is to direct all of that anger toward Trump rather than allow it to backfire on the party establishment.
I have many of the concerns as my family and friends about the future (particularly about the environment), but I am deeply disturbed by the effort to delegitimize this President and the effort to reconstruct history to fit a new narrative. The problem is not personalities but far more fundamental and serious. People felt that they do not matter in this system and they were right. Even with this populist election, not much has changed in Washington. So we are left with the same duopoly of power like the Yorks and Lancasters in the War of the Roses:
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
This post has been undated.
I have one word for you to remember ‘birther’ !@#$%$#@!
Yes, it is sad, and it is concerning. Understand that for the most part, this is all being instigated by people under 30, empowered by social media and media in general wanting to sell advertising. Parents did not instill compassion or critical thought in these kids. Nothing they undertake is about helping another human life but rather about making *themselves* feel better. It took at least three generations to get here. If it is something that can be remedied, it will take an equal amount of time. Again, sad and infuriating that any of these people on either side believe that they are conscious or righteous.
PS – it’s worth noting that the bulk of these protests are peopled with young, privileged caucasian women that have never encountered anything more personally challenging than a lost wi-fi signal, and in cities across the globe made up of that naivité and privilege. Objectivity has indeed gone out the window, and I blame parents. These are things people are taught or not taught, and it begins at home. Let us hope that sanity prevails.
Lost wifi-signals are bad. Imagine being unhinged from your philosophical moorings as Alinsky is hard to read in cache.
Thank you. Good points.
This protest is about Rosie O’Donnell on the View attacking Trump. Rosie calls Trump a pimp & Trump calls Rosie a pig.
You must be a man of little knowledge if you think that is what the protest is about.
The crowds are larger at the women’s march are than those at the inauguration. Many of the young women are wearing knitted caps as reminder of our new leader’s words. Too bad for him there was tape. Otherwise he could dismiss it as fake news.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people …
~H. L. Mencken
He was a newspaper and magazine editor, not some paragon of intellect.
So was polymath Benjamin Franklin.l I find Mencken downright paragonical:
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
~ H.L. Mencken
So what? Mencken knew nothing of science and technology.
You’ve confused cleverness and verbal agility with intelligence and wisdom. He was a tiresome village atheist who lacked the skills to build a domestic life.
I like a good village atheist without domestic skills. Like Voltaire, for instance. He seemed to have a little gravitas and was awfully clever. “Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers,” as he liked to say.
Voltaire was a man of letters, not a philosopher. He preferred despotism, by the way.
In the main, he did just like my other favorite philosopher, Sir Thomas Hobbes. Or, more properly, they desired a benevolent dictator or enlightened despot. They didn’t have the benefit of seeing democracy work over the long haul and went with what they knew.
BTW Voltaire was both a man of letters and a philosopher. Sort of a hybrid: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voltaire/
mespo – when it comes to philosophers you cannot beat the originals, Aristotle and the Stoics. That could be a band.
Actually, France and other European countries had antique electoral institutions.
BTW Voltaire was both a man of letters and a philosopher.
Nope.
Stanford disagrees.
Such an intelligent comment. You must be an American.
What march?
My twenty something daughter is protesting along with her fiance, and it has nothing to do with Rosie O”Donnell.
Both unemployed, eh?
Gainfully….
I thought the foundation was laying off.
Man a cop protesting Trump. That the chickens protesting the guard dog and loving up the fox.
Right, cops are too patriotic for this foolish waste of family time. Well, I assume he isn’t on the maintenance crew, those guys work hard and have too much sense plus can’t afford the indulgence of the suburban white, straight, monied guilt ethos. Maybe he’s one of those glorified lab guys now called CSI. Bravehearts, indeed. No dark alleys for them.
No, I said Soros wouldn’t pay them as misanthropes for him. You said they were misanthropes. Try and keep up with we ignoramuses.
Not as difficult as YOU think. 🙂
Ok, show it sometimes.
Since you need to have the last word you can.
No please take it. I like to leave ’em laughing. Please proceed.
So clever.
And original.:)
She looks like a pig.
“Trump is (correctly) criticized for failing to turn over his tax records”
I find this sentiment just as mystifying as your inexplicable dislike of the Electoral College. You would essentially strip away the voice of the small states, handing the government to the lunatics who rule the coasts (I include the southern coast of Lake Michigan), with the result that 85% of the counties in America (the “red” ones who voted for Trump) would lose their voice.
That is the most anti-democratic position I can possibly imagine. And it either is an expression of historical ignorance on your part (asking the question and knowing the answer as to why we do it that way), or an open despising of the Constitution. I read somewhere that you teach constitutional law, so your position is pretty weird.
But THIS opinion of yours might top the EC one in offensiveness to those who would uphold the Constitution. How rude. What business is it of yours (or of anyone’s)? Who do you think you are? This is a new thing, and it should never have been started. Have you no sense of the right to privacy in one’s “papers and effects”? (You might want to look that one up; it should come in handy in your chosen occupation.)
Another thing strange about this post is your bizarre fixation with the completely false narrative that “Clinton and Trump were the most unpopular politicians ever to be nominated for president.” This is ridiculous on its face. Trump could announce a rally on a few hours’ notice in a small town in a dozen different rural states, and tens of thousands of adoring fans would pack the place to overflowing. I’d call that “popular.” The Dowager Empress of Chappaqua, on the other hand, couldn’t fill a high school study hall after spending weeks and hundreds of thousands of dollars on publicity. Your basic premise, that America is starkly divided, is correct, but almost no one likes or trusts or admires the Dowager Empress, while Trump is wildly popular with people who hate the establishment elites that rightly inspire Lew Rockwell to refer to Washington as “Mordor.”
No one had any hope that the losing candidate would do anything but expand “the swamp.” Trump promised to put its creatures out of work; he may be less successful in that than he has been in building world-class golf courses, but millions are confident that he’ll do his damndest, and are cheering him on.
“You would essentially strip away the voice of the small states, handing the government to the lunatics who rule the coasts (I include the southern coast of Lake Michigan), with the result that 85% of the counties in America (the “red” ones who voted for Trump) would lose their voice.”
Add up the voters in all those counties and it amounts to ~3 million fewer votes, in this case. It begs the questions Why should the coastal states be ruled by small states.
And small states have an equal voice: the Senate.
“And small states have an equal voice: the Senate.”
In structure that is true. In reality the intent of that structure disappeared with the 17th amendment.
Nothing disappeared with the 17th Amendment. What changed was the skill set of those elected to the Senate. Prior to 1914, building relationships in legislatures was the skill. After, the mix of talents applied in electioneering over supra-local scales was salient, especially fundraising.
Your argument presupposes something that I would argue to be false, so what you say here is false.
The states, as the Declaration if Independence clearly says, were sovereign countries after the war against Britain was won. As colonies, they had joined one another in that effort, and afterward chose to confederate. When the conspirators in Philadelphia proposed to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States, replacing it with another of the same name, they did not abandon their sovereignty. They just relinquished some of their power.
So it was absolutely none of the business of the federal government how the sovereign states decided who would represent them in the Senate. “Skill sets” had nothing to do with it. Senators did not represent the persons who resided within their states, they represented governments, in exactly the way our representative to the United Nations does not represent 330 million Americans, but he country. A state could have chosen the governor’s butler, as a matter of policy. Or it could have become a sickening patronage thing of state-house dealing. But that’s ultimately an issue for each state’s citizenry to determine–do they want a corrupt government, or a clean one that they can be proud of?
When the Senate was handed to the mob, it ceased to represent the states, and the people of the states stopped having that responsibility. There was no longer the pressure to keep state government clean, because the Senators were no longer selected by state governments. This is a vital distinction.
When the Senate was handed to the mob,
The mob is what is otherwise known as ‘voters’. If elections to the Senate are problematic, it’s because of the fundraising involved. Voters aren’t transmogrified into idiots in the act of voting for a supralocal candidate.
There are lot’s of problems with the Senate as an institution (and there long have been). You’re not going to repair them with returning to elections by state legislators. That’s just mindless antiquarianism.
Voters ARE idiots, and can’t be trusted. That’s the point of the American system. Voters, in a democracy, are certain to do the exact worst thing, over time–because the people they vote for conspire to take over everything. The average person is a moron, and easily believes the most ridiculous lies. And is greedy, too, happily hiring politicians to steal their neighbors’ money to have it given to them.
The American system was designed to block this reality. The states, being separate, sovereign countries, represented alternatives for any United States citizen to avail themselves of; if Rhode Island became corrupt and evil, you could move to Pennsylvania, or Georgia. This should keep all of them honest in the same way that a local supermarket chain will go out of business if it systematically cheats its customers.
That’s why the legislative and executive absolutely cannot be allowed to be chosen by the greedy, stupid rabble. They were lucky to be throne a bone, in the form of the House and voting for Electors. But the states were where true authority lay, originally, and that was a very fine arrangement.
As for what you characterize as my “mindless antiquarianism,” it is far worse than that: in my opinion, the United States is far too large for the original system to work. The wrong side won Lincoln’s war of conquest. What is today the United States should be broken up into perhaps five smaller confederations; I would advise each of them to return to the pre-17th Amendment power of the states.
Since you don’t know how to spell “thrown” you can’t vote. Sorry.
Was that one of the words negroes had to spell before being allowed to vote in the South in the years after the Yankee occupiers decamped?
Reminds me of the joke about the three guys arriving at Heaven’s gates at the same time. You just have to spell one word correctly to be allowed in. Two of the “preferred” sort got an easy one; the “not our kind” one had to spell “Czechoslovakia.” That’s harder than “thrown,” so I guess I’d not be allowed THAT privilege, too.
“What changed was the skill set of those elected to the Senate. Prior to 1914, building relationships in legislatures was the skill.”
Exactly. Prior to, the Senators had to have a relationship with their constituents…the states, represented by their respective legislatures. Those legislatures by the way having a closer relationship with their constituents, the people. The people have their own representation in Congress. After, the people gained 2 and the states lost all. Who’s protecting the rights of the states? Senators that have no connection to the states other than their pandering for votes? The people, who will ignorantly vote away their own rights?
The centralizing of power in Washington D.C. has a root cause, is the 17th amendment unrelated to the rise of the administrative state?
Senators have as much a connection to their states as any politician representing an electoral constituency. In the current climate.
You seem to fancy there would be changes in the operation and priorities of the federal government if senators were elected by legislators, but that’s plausibly true only insofar as Senator behavior is driven by fundraising considerations. The state legislatures have been piss poor advocates of state autonomy for two generations. With little doubt, you’d get a U.S. Senate made up of characters like Alphonse d’Amato, there to grab some candy for their state, full stop.
The 17th amendment wasn’t some dirty trick. It passed all the high bars a constitutional amendment had to pass. One concern at the time (among the Amendment’s proponents) is that U.S. Senate seats were purchasable if you could corrupt enough legislators. What you won’t acknowledge is that the state legislatures ratified the 17th amendment. Hmmm.
Not everything in Mr. Madison’s handiwork proved utile and not everything that was proved to be abidingly utile.
“What you won’t acknowledge is that the state legislatures ratified the 17th amendment. Hmmm.”
Of course they did, that would be implicit in it being an amendment. However that is hardly an argument for its wisdom. We had a large percentage of Democrats giving Obama a standing ovation when he in essence told Congress they were irrelevant. Hardly evidence that federalism is alive and well in the country. We have large percentages of people in this country willing to to make all rights alienable. Hardly evidence they have the necessary enlightenment to preserve what our framer’s established.
Of course they did, that would be implicit in it being an amendment. However that is hardly an argument for its wisdom.
The state legislatures were making an admission against interest at the time.
“Mr. Madison wanted it that way” doesn’t cut it. Give someone an idea of a contemporary problem that would be resolved by returning to election by state legislators, and show your work.
State legislators tend to manifest local concerns and preferences better than members of Congress, because they live in their constituency and have things in common with those neighbors. However, it’s a mistake to think they’re all that close to the public. The circulation of information in the media concerning the doings of state legislatures is very truncated.
Follow the money. State ;politics is just as controlled as is federal politics. The RINOs did two smart things. They did not support Trump and let him get on with it but they did do a lot of downpoll work.
The Democrats did nothing outside of NYC, Chicago and LA. In the end Trump the outsider rallied the un-represented and was able to discard any notions of continuing progressivism.
With that down poll work it ended up a return after a 100 years of failure to a strong grass roots base of representative democratic principles applied to an even stronger Constitutional Republic – then demonstrated why the founders named citizens as the ultimate source of power.
Check out the continuing Young Turks revolt in Michigan and the local Second Amendment activity in Iowa.
Then look at the shambles of the old Democrat Party. Split into four or five factions one of which I heartily approve,. New Democrats controlled by faction now in the leadership position at DNC with a mission of erasing that party’s life long stain as the Party of Slavery, Racism, and Anti-Civil Rights. Not to mention the War Monger champions. i wish them luck and good fortune. Some went Green and some are looking across the aisle longingly thinking about switching. As for the others. Left wing extremist regressives and such. Who They?
Even the Republicans are not safe. But a new Constitutional Republic Party would be a great way to mend fences – minus the ‘rinos’
In New York, you seldom need much money to run for legislature. What you need is to get your name out there and break the inertia of the electorate. Few people can be bothered to do that, so state legislators are re-elected with only token opposition. Most states have smaller constituencies than New York.
‘Cause they agreed to it.
It doesn’t “beg the question,” but leaving aside that technicality, to return to my comments in earlier posts on the subject, this country is not called The United Persons of America.
That is, the STATES created the Federal government, and it is entirely appropriate that they choose the executive. The rabble get their voice also, in the House of Representatives.
Again, to repeat what I have already written here, the key to understanding the issue is that all deliberations in the Constitutional Convention were haunted by the prospect of ratification, once the proposed replacement government was taken back home and defended. Small states simply wouldn’t have gone for it if they weren’t equal to the big ones. That’s why there will never be a constitutional amendment to give the mob the right to choose the executive in our day–the small states like not being without a voice.
I hate being repetitive, but one more vital point: there is no country like the United States. The closest comparison would be to Europe, were it one country. If there were a Constitution of Europe, and the mob got to choose its “president,” Greece and Luxembourg would never get any say at all. Just as Wyoming, Rhode Island and Delaware would no longer mean anything politically here, were the Electoral College to be done away with. The People of Britain can choose their government, as can the people of Spain. The fact that we have a close association here, amongst the sovereign states, means that they have to defend their soveiregnty all the more heroically.
For Delaware or Rhode Island or Wyoming to ‘mean something’, you need standards and practices which secure the autonomy of provincial units, not kludged ways of tallying the ballots in a presidential election and pointless rituals in state capitols.
No, you don’t need those things. Trump proved that. He did four rallies in Maine, for instance, to win only one of its electoral votes. He thought Maine meant something, even if it was only one third.
Trump went to Iowa lots of times, to Wisconsin, to Michigan and Alabama and the Carolinas, too. Because they mean something–and he won because of it. The people of those states had a voice, because of the Electoral College, and Trump’s masterful understanding of it. And those people are grateful.
As for the sickening attitude typified by the horrible people who live in coastal California, I thank God they can’t tell people in Wisconsin how to live.
o, you don’t need those things. Trump proved that.
What are you talking about? If you’re concerned about provincial autonomy, address that issue. That a candidate makes a campaign stop near where you live hardly matters.
Hillary might disagree if she were honest. But that’s another open question. Mayor of New York City. Is that an insult or what? I believe it was New York States way of telling her she’s not welcome.
Real question with ALL the investigations running full tilt and more added which Federal Prison will be the new address.
RE: ” Trump could announce a rally on a few hours’ notice in a small town in a dozen different rural states, and tens of thousands of adoring fans would pack the place to overflowing. I’d call that “popular.” The Dowager Empress of Chappaqua, on the other hand, couldn’t fill a high school study hall after spending weeks and hundreds of thousands of dollars on publicity.”
Spot on! Like Bernie, Trump’s supporters were wildly enthusiastic about him. 0 enthusiasm for HRC except from the corporate Establishment, the MSM and stars who envisioned themselves hangin’ at the WH. The biggest crowd a HRC rally ever drew was when Michelle Obama appeared with her in NC – people came out to see Michelle.
My apologies to Comrade Bernie. The division of the former Democrat Party also includes the very very far left. Snowflakes need representation too after all.
But as for the old Democrats? Color them ‘Who You?’
In my lifetime there has never been a President that met all my needs. I figure if the President meets 50% of my needs without offending me too much, I am fine.
I would say there are at least three groups that regularly contribute here. I actually think the independent group is the largest block of commenters, wearing stripes from deeply conservative to very liberal. The common point among this group is that we would not have the Democratic party wipe away all sin and allow this anointed one to move forward free of the crimes against our country and greater humanity. She represents a global oligarchy, and we have watched as scores of countries are vilified and in many cases attacked if they act in their own interests. Thousands of people have died from her direct, documented involvement. Clinton has showed she is no friend of women and minorities, but she has been declared almost a “virgin queen” by her wide-eyed followers. Trump may be a little scary at this point, but I have been amazed by the Democrats ability to ignore any negatives about Clinton, like “we came, we saw, he died,” then the heartless chuckle. The Democrats may project their nightmarish dreams of what may come with Trump, but we have a solid precedent on what Clinton is, and her evil nature was laid bare before everyone. A little late now, but there should be a “it’s not Clinton” celebration on the Mall.
Great post slohrrs! Unless the Dems wake up they are finished. Booker is being criticized heavily by progressives as is the DNC chair nominees. Although I think “why bother” with the Dems anymore. Start a new party?
And I might add, if people with views such as mine are so absolutely wicked and irredeemable, let us go, so you can create your socialist utopia without hindrance.
¡Viva Presidente Donald Trump!
“Even with this populist election, not much has changed in Washington. So we are left with the same duopoly of power like the Yorks and Lancasters in the War of the Roses:”
*********************
Give it time. Even the most powerful antibiotics take a few days as the body martials the antibodies.
And those antibiotics can give you the runs!
They started running before the election:
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/stars-who-threatened-to-leave-the-u-s-if-trump-was-elected/
They decided to stay and protest.
Like that matters.
Sadly they chose to stay. Was hoping Ginsburg would go to New Zealand as she stated – but then they have strict immigration rules so probably rejected her =)
They talk tough and fold. Something to do with a colossal lack of character. Ever know any performance artists, as they like to be called? A miserable, nihilistic, hedonistic lot! That’s why they have to play characters with character. Supplies an undiscovered need.
Autumn – the reason Ginsburg could not emigrate to New Zealand is that they require a marketable skill.
Paul — Certainly hope you have no plans or desire to emigrate to New Zealand since the same requirement would likely bar your admission to the country as well.
ScientificSkeptic – I am a certified teacher. That is a skill.
Have Cher and Barbra Streisand moved to Canada yet? Keeping my fingers crossed……
Why Cher? Has Cher ever been one to make remarks on topical political questions?
We are Balkanizing, coming apart at the seams…and Mr. Turley is only stating the obvious.
I have a feeling Mr. Turley is going to be drummed out of the wonderful, tolerant left if he keeps going off the reservation!
If it’s the next battle of the American Revolution. So be it. They’ll be a winner.
Thought he was a libertarian and not a member of the left.
We have a Women “Going to the Mattresses” Weekend at the Turley casa. JT needs to be Fat Clemenza and make a pot of sauce.
I like a good mattress girl like our little hoaxster here:
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/columbia-student-the-damage-done-by-mattress-girl/
Molto bebe! I honestly was not thinking of the Columbia mattress girl when I wrote my comment. You should hear Camille Paglia rip that mattress girl a new one!
Emma Sulkowicz papa is a prominent member of the mental health trade in Manhattan (clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, I forget which). Cobbler’s kids go without shoes.
Great!! Didn’t know that.
New Guy is saying: My way or the highway. There will be Republicans who become disaffected. Democrats will drift over when and if he creates jobs in America. He needs to focus on the Rustbelt. Coal minors need a new type of jobs but the jobs need to be brought to coal mine areas. For solar needs wind and there is not always wind in coal mine areas.
New Guy is starting off quite well. The media this morning is mixed, depending on whether you watch Fox or CNN– and the old networks are mixed. Hugh Hewlett was on this morning and was quite favorable to New Guy. When the religion stuff gets over with today then it will resume demain on Sunday but on Monday we will see a new day in America brought about by New Guy.
Someone above said that New Guy is a smart one and that so was Hitler. Most humans who make it to the top office in any territory are somewhat smart. You can be smart even if you talk hillbilly or New Yorkie. It is not fair to compare New Guy to Hitler. Not fair to either.
I am going to remain open minded towards New Guy for several months and see what comes about. Coal minors need a new type of jobs but the jobs need to be brought to coal mine areas. I went to Walmart this morning to the hardware department and all the tools were made in China. We need to reverse that and have tools made in America.
Maybe New Guy is the right tool for the right job.
Bombs away!
http://iloveww2warbirds.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/lancaster-bomber.jpg
Donald Trump took the oaf of office. Or is the oaf of office. Watch out. Which means Make America Great again by buying his wife’s watches. Or by buying a Make America Great hat made in China. Or by not looking at his tax returns.
The election was decided by mud slinging. DDT slung more mud than Clinton. In reality Clinton, after weaseling for a while, did admit and apologize saying she had learned her lessons. DDT has only apologized once, for talking about grabbing pu**y as a benefit to being top dog. DDT is far, far, far more disgusting than Clinton and far eclipses her as a liar. DDT lies when he doesn’t even have to. Clinton lied, like us all, when she was cornered. DDT lies simply to establish a fabric where no one will be able to tell if and when he is lying. He’s a smart one. So was Hitler.
Same old rant bla, bla, bla, bla.
Clinton lied, like us all when she was cornered.”
Speak for yourself. The fact you see yourself with the same moral fiber as Clinton says everything anyone needs to know about you.
Trump lies whether he is cornered or not. He is a walking definition of a pathological liar.
He doesn’t exactly lie so much as just not having a clue about anything, having grossly mixed up thinking, and wanting to sound like he is smart.
Olly
So, you never told a lie when you thought you had no choice. Right there is a lie and you have a choice. Cut from the same cloth as fish mouth.
You really are a tool Issac. Your quote was “Clinton lied, like us all when she was cornered.” Finish the sentence; Clinton lied about… When you have the intellectual honesty to answer THAT, then let’s see if you can come to grips with the magnitude of her lies compared to yours and compared to mine.
I question people for a living. We don’t “all lie when cornered.” That shows just what sort of person the Canadian is. I have questioned people many times who, when the truth was going to hurt them, stepped up and told the truth. I have been on the witness stand when I was asked questions that I KNOW I could have answered untruthfully w/ impunity, but still told the truth, against my client’s best interest.
Olly, the Canadian writes in tedious polemics. But, in his short comment today, we learned all we need to know about him. Certainly not a surprise.
Wow, this comment is exactly the kind of extreme narrative the blog post was mean to rebut. To take just one of your points, I think Clinton’s entire campaign mudslinging. What positive plan did she have? All she did, and all you are doing, is advancing ridiculous caricatures of Trump.
I thought Obacala was the reason we have President Trump. The woman’s march you mean the group that turned away the right to life woman? It’s always the same song with the libs “your OK if it’s my way”.
The women’s march is certainly exceeding expectations.. Heading out to my local one.
The injection of Christianity into everything is going to be insane, as if it isn’t already.
We are by design a secular country (with the exercise of religion being an *individual* right). But the religious nuts hovering around the Steak-Salesman will do all they can to erode this fact.
I’m sure Mythmas this coming year will be especially psychotic: like a big unconstitutional crucifix set in the middle of the White House Lawn.
And Cheney, I mean Pence, will be leading that erosion.
No, we are not ‘by design’ a ‘secular country’. The constitutional design prohibited a national church. That is all it prohibited. In spec, that means no declaration of official status, no mandatory tithes, no fines for recusancy, and no ecclesiastics appointed by politicians. The states elected to dismantle their state churches at various times between 1776 and 1833, but they were not required to do so. Of course, the society at the time was vigorously Christian (and, in fact Protestant).
Which is why Maryland was founded as a refuge for Catholics.
Didn’t last long as a refuge. Maryland Catholics took some punishment for 180 years.
It is likely that Dave137 meant secular government rather than secular country. The text of our Constitution clearly indicates that the founders intended to establish a secular system of governance at the federal or national level. In the years since, this secular intent has been applied by the Supreme Court through the 14th Amendment to the states.Of course the Religious Right has been apoplectic about this ever since the first SCOTUS decision doing this in 1947, and has attempted with religious zeal bordering on fanaticism to reverse this course.
No, it does not. It indicates that the Founders intended there be no national Church. They were appending a mess of provincial units which had had a variety of establishments: Anglican, Dutch Reformed, Puritan, and sometimes one and then another ad seriatim. Along with these there were states who’d had no Establishment, or a purely notional establishment or light religious tests for public office. No establishment was a passable ad hoc compromise. The First Congress hired a chaplain and even Franklin was known to call for prayers in public and official settings. George Washington wasn’t sworn in on a copy of David Hume’s writings. The notion that a ‘secular’ government was intended is advocacy history.
Thanks. I did intend government.
Cite the role of (a specific) God and the role of religion as stated in the Constitution. Go on. Specific clauses.
Cite the role in the New York Law on Public Printing and Documents.
The Constitution had a discrete purpose, and that was to delineate institutional scaffolding. Appended to that were a list of discrete privileges and immunities that put some breaks on the obligations federal law could impose on parties. It was not (nor did it pretend to be) a disquisition on civil society. The state establishments at that time were delineated in state charters and statutory law.
Very appropriate.
“but I am deeply disturbed by the effort to delegitimize this President and the effort to reconstruct history to fit a new narrative.”
That dog won’t hunt. You should have thought about that BEFORE publishing a fake news story this morning. Yes, that’s right. You brought a stain on your integrity the nanosecond you made that decision.
It isn’t fake simply because you disagree, son. I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference.
Keep up pops! Was the story sourced and proven true before the decision was made to post it? You are right about one thing, You are “sorry”.
It is what is known as ‘editorialization’, in other words, ‘opinions’. It isn’t intended to represent an objective, codified encapsulation of a situation, just one person’s view based on their own observations and experience. Critical thinking is dead as a doornail in this country.