Below is my column in the Hill on why Trump’s future may come down to the calendar rather than the evidence. This could get pretty twisted in the election season.
Here is the column:
Donald Trump was back in all caps this week, denouncing prosecutors, warning of “death and destruction” if he is arrested, and even posting a picture wielding a baseball bat menacingly near a headshot of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
After each tirade, many of us denounced the inflammatory rhetoric while others insisted the former president was becoming unhinged at the prospect of being arrested. As if to speed along that decline, others posted viral fake AI-generated pictures showing Trump being arrested. Then Trump shared his own AI-generated photo of praying.
The fact is that Trump is in his element: In the land of rage, the most enraged man is king.
If you surf cable shows, you will see pundits in virtual ecstasy as they prepare for the possibility of a Trump mug shot or perp walk. The level of excitement could prompt Pornhub to do its first live courthouse feed.
The end-is-near predictions may be more of a fetish than a fact, however. A new Harvard/Harris poll shows 59 percent of Americans think the indictment is politically motivated, and 67 percent think the Trump payment in question was a personal expense.
Some liberal legal analysts have denounced Attorney General Merrick Garland for not expediting criminal charges against Trump with “the 2024 election cycle” in mind. If that is the measure, Trump just might have a winning hand — regardless of what occurs in these cases.
Many analysts have already addressed the dubious legal basis of the reported Manhattan indictment. The Georgia investigation into election violations is stronger, but that is not saying much; absent new evidence, the case appears to rest on highly challengeable elements.
Then there is the most compelling threat to Trump — the special counsel investigation into documents he held at Mar-a-Lago. While the Jan. 6 part of the investigation looks like another dead letter, absent new evidence; however, the classified document controversy involves well-established claims of obstruction, and not just possession of classified material.
In the meantime, Trump is doing what he does best: bringing out the worst in people.
After Bragg previously stopped the effort to pursue Trump, two prosecutors in his offices — Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz — resigned in protest and fueled a public campaign to force Bragg to indict.
In Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis rode a wave of election support in pledging to get Trump. Then Emily Kohrs, the forewoman of a special grand jury convened by Willis, went public in a series of bizarre interviews on CNN and NBC, literally giggling in excitement about nailing Trump.
If Bragg made the New York proceedings look openly political, Willis and Kohrs made the Georgia proceedings look openly comical.
In Washington, the Justice Department is dealing with the mess created by President Biden, who publicly expressed revulsion at the very thought of Trump possessing classified documents at Mar-a-Lago: “How that could possibly happen. How one, anyone, could be that irresponsible.” That was before Biden was found to have classified documents going back more than a decade in various locations, including his garage in Delaware.
In the end, the calendar rather than the crimes may determine Trump’s future.
None of these cases is likely to be fully prosecuted before the 2024 presidential election, assuming they survive expected challenges. And even if Trump is convicted, that would not be a barrier to taking office. The Constitution limits qualification for the presidency to being at least 35 years old, a natural-born citizen, and a U.S. resident for at least 14 years.
Trump is unlikely to see the inside of a prison before the election. Even after the election, courts likely would allow appeals to be exhausted before ordering the arrest of a sitting president — and those appeals could take years.
On the federal charge, special counsel Jack Smith would have to finish his grand jury investigation and then convince Attorney General Garland to green-light criminal charges. He then may need to bring an indictment before the end of summer 2024, since Justice Department policy discourages filings that might affect an election. For the presidential election, that period would likely extend to August 2024.
If Smith cannot indict Trump before then, he would run into another long-standing Justice Department policy. The department has long maintained (in my view, incorrectly) that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
If Smith secured a conviction before the election, Trump could still stay on the ballot. Indeed, even if he were jailed, he still could be elected president. After all, Eugene Debs ran for president in 1920 on the Socialist ticket despite being in prison for violating the Espionage Act.
Trump literally could run on a promise to self-pardon and then immediately negate any conviction. Indeed, that issue may prove the ultimate anti-establishment rallying point for him. Trump won in 2016 in part because many of his voters wanted to stick it to the media and political elites. So, a charge or conviction before the election could well turn that anti-establishment wave into a tsunami.
Of course, Trump could not pardon himself on a state conviction. Moreover, Georgia is one of only three states that do not give pardon authority to the governor; that authority rests with Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles. (Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican who has long been a target of Trump’s ire, may feel relieved to have his authority limited in this instance.) However, the state could push for changes to negate a conviction or prevent enforcement against a sitting president.
To most people, that may seem like an utter mess. For Donald Trump, it is an opportunity. Trump has always found advantage in chaos. That is why, if much of the public continues to view these legal cases as political prosecutions, Democrats may be handing Trump a winning hand.
A Washington Post columnist previously declared that Trump has nothing to offer in defense to federal charges. That may or may not be true, but “nothing” could prove a major “something” in an election year.
In the film, “Cool Hand Luke,” fellow prisoners asked Paul Newman’s character why he would continually raise the stakes in a poker game when he was holding nothing of value. His reply: “Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
“I was not wrong to use Children as an example.”
We were dealing with government and compromise. I believe you wanted to prove one should not compromise and therefore the left should be treated so they fail. We agree that failure is a good lesson, but your comment about failure would involve the entire adult population.
Your argument was that one could teach children through failure.That is true.
But I brought up that children live in an authoritarian household, and that is not the type of country we want for adults.
You mix a lot into your comments which is fine with me, but then you have to deal with the confusion that creates.
.
The above was S. Meyer responding to John.
What Professor Turley terms “Trump bringing out the worst in people”… I see as “Trump exposing to us the worst in people and government” …big differance.
For clarity, the John I was talking to was John Say. The reply was not appropriately linked.
Trump only brings out the worst in liberals
Prof. Turley – you credit the other potential claims far too much.
From end to end this is all entirely political.
Absent some evidence that has not been made public – and none of the “get Trump” prosecutions have EVER produced the hinted at secret evidence, all have gone the opposite direction – as more has become known the cases against Trump have grown weaker not stronger.
Regardless the core to the J6 case and the GA Election case is that the loser in an election must kowtow to the left andaccept dubious results.
If there were ZERO doubts about the 2020 election, if everything had been transparent, and the rules had been followed and Trump had lost by margins that were beyond the possibility of fraud or error, if it could be proven that Trump secretly knew this.
If all that were true – and in the real world none of it is true. Trump could still lawfully say and do everything that has been claimed that he said and did.
And the idiotic “obstruction” claims are even worse. Anyone may legitimately exercise every legal and constitutional means available to them to hinder law enforcement efforts to prosecute them.
It is the DUTY of those in Government to dot every I and cross every T – not the target of their ire.
From the start of the conflict with the Biden WH over Documents this administration sought to ESCALATE.
The documents issues were not at all unusual, and the past legal history strongly Favors the Ex President.
JW V NARA and a string of cases preceding it extablishes as law that nearly any documents a former president takes with them at the end of their presidency are THEIR PROPERTY. Classification not withstanding.
That is the caselaw. Subsequent courts can change that – but not retroactively. Trump was entitled to rely on those decisions – even if later courts found those decisions error.
What is self evident is that the Biden admin was itching for a fight over documents from the start.
That they sought to use every trick in the book to escalate and cause a confrontation.
And that at the same time they REFUSED to do what was actually required and resolve the matter in court.
In short, from the start this was not over documents. It was over attempting to get Trump to Kow Tow to his state antagonists, and if he did not to attempt to force an error that could be construed as a crime.
No subpeona has the legal weight of an actual court order. Like Warrants Subpeona’s are ex-parte processes.
The burden regarding the legitimacy and compliance with a subpeona rests with the party issuing the subpeona.
Subpeona’s are issued in court cases all the time. and nearly always the PARTY issuing the subpeona does not beleive – sometimes correctly, that subpeona has been complied with.
The claim of obstruction seeks to inflate a subpeona to more legal consequence than a warrant.
Warrants require atleast a magistrate to review the demand. Subpeonas do not. Warrants authorize a search by law enforment.
The legal theory being used here converts a subpeona into a super warrant, that can be issued without even exparte review by a magistrate, that requires the victim to search themselves and criminalizes their failure to do so to the satisfaction of the government.
If you can convert subjective claims of failure to comply with a subpeona into a crime – where the process was not even ex-parte,
you have provided law enforcement with a hammer that is completely unchecked.
\
If it leads to more swamp drainage, or cleaning up NYC/NY state govt., and the democrat mafia, then its for a good cause
It’s lousy how it’s said Trump finds power in chaos. We have lowlife idiots ruining the rule of law and it is characterized as a benefit to Trump.
This is what you do when (you’re a good writer spinning a good yarn, playing into stereotypical attacks) you’re not serious or are enjoying the attack, or consider yourself a moral better. All this fakerage was ginned up long after the whole zeitgeist was a great love for Trump, even from the left. So my hat is only off to Trump, since he hasn’t put up with or condoned the criminals and liars and destroyers, and so they double and triple and quadruple down. I frankly don’t care, let it all burn, and those who burned it down can turn to ash.
Not laying the sword for the criminals is a good thing, no matter what extent they go to with their lies and frauds and whipping up the democrats into a hazy drooling mob. Let’s face it, the same criminals did it with covid, and will do it with whatever else they concoct in the near future. NEVER GIVE THEM AN INCH.
Voting can no longer fix our Nation’s ills, perhaps third time will be the charm.
Well, who believes it anyway. Seeing that real poll played far and wide would be something. If you still believe in it after 2020 and 2022 you’re near brain dead or so uninformed you’d never be asked.
Remember what Trump said, they are coming for YOU but I am merely in the way. Where does American draw the line? They just killed millions of people with their virus, they’re indoctrinating our children and they’re destroying our country. Where is the line drawn?
Meg Reiss’s Twitter Account Exposed – Alvin Bragg’s Chief Assistant District Attorney Who Is Allegedly Running the DumbAss Office Is a Raging Trump-Hater and Proud Of It
https://truthsocial.com/users/Flyers54/statuses/110112988436698629
#dumbass #ArrestBragg #OMG #persecution #crime https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e2949c38032c3736d004fbbf558fda73fdc3d81d9bb66cd888078cf9ecb5dbca.jpg
My comment on Trump is this: The government is soooo screwed up and corrupt, we need a two-term president to start to clean it up. With Trump allowed only one more term, it’s better to start with a new generation of Trump-like Republicans.
Trump is a wrecking ball. He needs to finish what he started with a vengeance. Then Ron can serve 8 more years following up (more nicely) on what Trump started.
Ron is opposed to most of what Trump started. Look elsewhere or surrender.
Please explain.
Ron has no chance.
My personal evaluation of DeSantis is that he has about as much chance to be POTUS as Faucahauntis. My conservative parents (retired military) live in Melbourne, FL and deeply dislike DeSantis.
Why?
Because he’s controlled by the same people that controlled JEB! and Hillary.
Anyone with an internet connection should be aware of that fact by now.
I have no opinion on Trump v. DeSantis.
The primary appeal of is that he is most likely to take seriously ending the absolute nonsense reflects by those trying to “get Trump”
And Frankly, I doubt Trump will come close to doing the house cleaning that is needed.
But there is no one, Not DeSantis, not any other Republican or democrat that would do a fraction of What Trump is likely – which is still insufficient.
I disagree. These people are so full of themselves, and were already destroying our nation for many decades. They just figured it was their birthright and liferight and by golly why would anyone not approve when they are so great and wonderful ? Like Tucker mockingly said, they are gods in their own minds.
Everything was already turning decades ago, getting worse and worse, boiling the frog bit by bit.
Now we have seen we really don’t have anywhere near a full picture of their crimes and infiltration and currently going insanities – Twitter revealed to the sleeping a tiny taste of the tamped down reality that is nearly everywhere.
None of this is Trump’s fault, not a single bit.
Trump has been the bravest of souls to expose the deep state for what it is. Democrats, leftest, socialists, communists, academics, and the entire financial istitution have been united in their opposition to exposure he espouses. These folk have used lawfare, lying, cheating, stealing, and obfuscation to try and prevent exposure. Time is on their side and they know it. Trump has shown that he is fully capable of taking the active barbs and venomous hatred these folk use as stock in trade. The fourth estate should be abolished in its current form. I will vote for him in a heartbeat in a duality choice between him and Biden. My choice would be for Trump to be president 47 and take the heat that Rinos and others of their ilk refuse to. Then and only then can a 48th president succeed him and further reduce the myriad of anti-freedom candidates and proposals these folks prefer and enact. I have personally found that none (100%) of the candidates I support and most of the bond proposals my local and state governments support which I fully oppose are enacted 95% of the time. Did my vote count?
I
Trump is the only Republican who has shown he is willing to fight to take on the NeoCons, Deep State, Tech media, Press media, Lobbyists and actually initiate policies that made a huge difference for America – deregulation, massive tax reduction, trade treaty renegotiations, getting out of idiot Green New Deal treaties like the Paris Accords, promoting energy independence, fighting to support re-industrialization, controlling the borders, ending the endless wars while rebuilding the military and confronting China with tariffs with teeth etc.
The other Republicans from NeverTrumpers like Romney, NeoCons like McCain, the Bushes, and most of the other Senatorial Republicans TALK about fighting for Change but cave-in and fail to actually get it done. DeSantis seems very good but he is also in with the Bushes and nobody knows if he will fight for America First as Trump did. We need four years of Trump to change the direction back to peace and prosperity and we need to then find a Republican – probably emerging from his administration who can be trusted to continue America First.
Trump made outrageous progress in his first term in spite of the evil fighting him all the way. Four years is enough for him to make irreparable damage to the globalist swamp. After that he should be given 4 more years just because of what they did to stop him originally.
I disagree that Trump thrives when there is chaos. He absolutely flubbed during the chaotic Covid times—keeping and deferring to Fauci and Blix, advocating and imposing shutdowns, losing two senate seats in Georgia, etc. I, for one, am tired of the antics and drama. He had a great run, got rid of Hillary and the Bushes, kept us and the world, including Ukraine, out of war, and had a great economy, but he areas where he showed appallingly poor judgment ( keeping Comey and Kusner, twitter spats over trivial things, Covid policy, etc.) outweigh any of that for a second term.
Trump is the only one they fear. Desantis is a bush/ryan puppet. It’s trump or no one for me.
That statement is absolutely correct. You know how much the left fears Trump by the intensity of their campaigns of deceitful attacks continuously launched at him, by their willingness to defile normal constitutional norms to try to harm him. Trump is a fighter, the only fighter the Republicans have had since Teddy Roosevelt, and the only one who stands up to the Democrats. Trump is probably helped by being a multi-billionaire able to fund his own campaigns when needed and not dependent on wealthy donors. But beyond that, Trump loves America, values American freedom, and decided at this stage in his life to put it all on the line and fight for freedom.
We have seen many Republicans who TALKED a principled conservative game but then caved in to the uniparty left program of gradual degradation of America. Paul Ryan was particularly bad but the Bushes, Romney, McCain, Rubio, and so many others are the same. If there is one Republican I think does have the right stuff to be a fighter and who is the candidate I hope Trump selects for VP and who then becomes President for two terms following the 2024 Trump term, I hope it is Ted Cruz who stands alone as a principled fighter. Rand Paul also has the courage but he does not have the gravitas and stamina and personal powerful personality that Trump or Cruz have.
You just named off a number of things that Trump did right. Those “only” included a great economy and keeping us out of Ukraine. There is much more. We had new trade agreements, immigration was under control, and so were China and N Korea. He was absolutely correct about many things, like continuing to give the NATO deadbeats money. His “flubs” were trusting people to do their jobs and not be corrupt. Fauci and Blix lied. At least Trump shut down the border and expedite PPE as recommended by the criminals at the CDC. Apparently, you must think that De Santis, who has never run anything or maybe some other RINO would do better, I’d suggest that you might be better off adjusting your expectations.
“. . . advocating and imposing shutdowns . . .”
He did neither. In fact, he vigorously *opposed* shutdowns.
All Progressives lie, all the time.
Agreed
The documents case is weak all trump needs is scotus to rule that as a sitting president he had declassified them per his power and there is several precedents that back his ability to do so more than not do by far. Also you can’t obstruct the records act when it’s not a law. The two state cases are both weak.
How many judges are not crooked or ball-less?
“He absolutely flubbed during the chaotic Covid times…”
You mean when the bio weapon funded by Democrats was let loose, probably deliberately to hurt President Trump?
There was nothing wrong with President Trump’s response to Covid. He did what any President could be expected to do – listen to so-called “experts.” He had no way to know that Fauci was actually the creator of the disease (and probably the man who arranged for it to be released). Because of Trump, we NEVER had a ventilator shortage; the experimental treatment was allowed to be used voluntarily (he never mandated it as Democrats did).
The “antics and drama” are the only reason half of America finally realizes how utterly malicious Democrats / DC establishment denizens are. This has been healthy for America. Enjoy his second term!
Trump was out of his element during Covid, but was far better than the left. DeSantis was the bright spot regarding Covid, but many of Trump’s gut reactions were correct.
He made Fauci the supreme leader as of Covid, and that, I believe, was Trump’s greatest failure. As I said before, Fauci was old and didn’t do a great job with HIV. We needed younger, less bureaucratic blood. I don’t understand why Trump didn’t start utilizing others when he was onstage reducing the power of Fauci and the CDC.
Ah, I do believe that Vice Pres. Pence was in charge of Covid response directly, not Trump. Pence, being a creature of the swamp, looked to Gov. to lead the charge against this bio warfare and brought in Falchi and Burk, instead of anyone of the experts in our county outside of the Government. What did He know?
Trump was president and far more in the picture than Pence.
No, No, No !!!!
Please quit accepting the presumptions of the left.
Why is it that you adopt thoughtlessly the unsupported assertion that government had any role in Covid ?
To those on the left – you claim that abortion is medical care and is solely between a women and her doctor with no role for the state.
Then WHY has the state the power to step in regarding Covid ?
If the state can tell you that you must stay at home, where a mask, get vaccinated. shutdown your business over a virus,
Then why can’t they prevent you from having an abortion ? Or Force you to have one ?
If something is your choices when it comes tot he unintended consequences of sex.
Why is it not your choice when it comes tot he unintended consequences of going to work, or the supermarket ?
The problem with Covid was not a failure to select the RIGHT experts.
It was the presumption that healthcare is the domain of government.
“Why is it that you adopt thoughtlessly the unsupported assertion that government had any role in Covid ?”
There are direct and indirect roles you seem to forget. Some laws exist whether I agree with them or not. The country does not run on a simple 0/1 framework. We must deal with what exists, not what one wants to exist. I preferred handling the situation differently, especially after we better understood the threat. However, we are a nation of laws, and I do not control the pursuit of the law.
“Then WHY has the state the power to step in regarding Covid ?”
Because Covid affects more than one individual at a time, I would not have had much of a federal government policy regarding Covid after the initial two weeks, but existing laws dictate how things happen across borders.
“Then why can’t they prevent you from having an abortion ? Or Force you to have one ?”
The State can do either if done Constitutionally. The Constitution is not perfect.
“The problem with Covid was not a failure to select the RIGHT experts.
It was the presumption that healthcare is the domain of government.”
I agree to a point. The federal government failed when it dictated how states and people within the states should behave. It failed again when it limited speech. The institutions failed when politicization occurred. More failures existed, and they tell us to limit government intervention.
Healthcare is individual, but there is a communal right to protect society from communicable diseases that kill since disease knows no borders.
I do not forget.
I do not agree. PERIOD.
I am actually quite Glad that Trump committed millions to speeding up the development of the Covid Vaccine – despite the fact that it proved a failure.
But a better alternative would have been for government to stay entirely out of it.
The only reason that Trump’s thumb was necessary was to overcome the improper power of the FDA to slow the process down.
I wish the vaccine had worked.
I think we all do.
It was a gamble – that drug companies should have been free to take.
With the clear possibility of enormous profits had they been successful.
That is how the market works.
Deliver what people want before anyone else and get the gold ring.
Regardless, the only reason that indirect influence was necessary was to overcome illegitimate direct government influence.
As best as I can see from history there is no example anywhere ever of govenrment successfully managing a public health crisis.
That does not mean there were not health crisises.
Only that Government has never been effectual in dealing with them.
I would note the same is true of natural disasters.
Today we are used to crediting FEMA – while in reality they do very little.
Regardless, there were crises long before FEMA,
Jonestown recovered from the Flood.
San Franciso from the Earthquake,
Chicago from the Fire.
And all in short order.
The Spanish Flu – like every other epidemic ever,
ended when it had burned itself out.
We actually may have F’d up with Covid and by “flattening the curve” caused Covid to become endemic when it likely would have naturally killed the fewer people over a shorter period and then vanished entirely.
The spanish flu killed millions and after two distinct spreads faded forever.
Covid shows no signs of disappearing.
It is possible that is due to the nature of the disease.
But it is more likely that is because we have artificially stretched it such that we created enough herd immunity for it to be diminished.
But that immunity does not last long enough to get covid to die off.
Regardless, governemtn was not only ineffective regarding Covid,
It made things worse – both Trump and Biden,
and there is no evidence at all that it could possibly have made things better.
Not directly, not indirectly.
One of the major problems of the left is two fold – first it idiotically believes all problems are solvable.
And 2nd it believes that, government is the best solution to all problems.
The only problems that government is fit for purpose, are those problems that REQUIRE the use of FORCE.
I would further note your indirect claim is a mirror of the same cliiam the left is trying to make regarding censorship and free speech.
That while Government can not constitutionally directly censor speech that it can do so indirectly.
Speech, Covid, it does not matter. What is outside the domain for government to do directly, it may not do indirectly.
You can argue till you are blue in the face that I will not get what I am demanding. And you would be right.
But where you are wrong, is in presuming that the “compromises” you push will produce anything less than a bad outcome.
Covid was itself a bad epidemic – worse than almost anyone expected.
I was wrong in many predictions – though right about the most important ones.
The US Death Toll is still way below predictions I claimed were bogus.
But it is likely that about twice the number of Americans were infected as I predicted.
But the most important claim I got right from the start was that Government action was going to make things worse not better.
First in terms of the epidemic itself.
But more importantly Everything else.
The entire world has been changed – not by Covid the disease, but by Covid public policies.
The scale of the problems we have created globally by our poor choices regarding Covid is gargantuan.
we have destabilized the world economy for atleast the next decade.
We have reshaped the world in bad ways we did not intend.
And the direct as well as indirect government policies all contributed.
It is not that I forget.
But that I reject.
“Because Covid affects more than one individual at a time”
That is not a valid criteria for govenrment intervention,
and that can be claimed for nearly everything.
The relevant questions are:
Is the problem solveable ?
If so, is the best solution to the problem factoring in unintended consequences the use of FORCE ?
Unless you can answer BOTH yes, there is no role for government.
With respect to the law and constitution, I fundimentally reject the claim of Scalia that the Constitution is not a suicide pact”.
If our laws and constitution do not work in times of emergency – they do not work at all.
Throughout Covid there was never any need to short circuit normal processes.
Without going point by point, you miss that compromise needs to exist whether or not you like it. It might mean a loss, but hopefully, it effectuates a direction of movement that might be better than a stalemate.
Let’s look at this in the election of leaders. I decided to compromise and vote for Trump. You didn’t compromise and voted for the third-party candidate. Biden won. I voted for the right person, and you let the chips fall where ever they landed. I agree with you. Trump was imperfect.
The second point I wish to discuss is your statement, “I would further note your indirect claim is a mirror of the same claim the left is trying to make regarding censorship and free speech.”
Mirror images can be equated with D/L isomers which are otherwise identical. The problem is D and L don’t act the same.
I’ll leave the rest of the points on the cutting floor.
You miss the fact that compromise is a Tool, not a value or a principle.
Absolutely we need hammers and screwdrivers.
But everything is not a nail.
Should we never compromise ? No.
Should we always compromise ? No!
We have covered this ground before, and you have done nothing to improve your argument.
This is not about compromise – except to the extent that you appear to be claiming – without providing a basis
that compromise is always or nearly always the right choice.
Compromise over principles is either never or almost never the right choice.
In other cases ? That will depend one the specifics.
Regardless, there are ALWAYS atleast 3 (and usually more) possible outcomes.
Win, lose, compromise.
Assuming you are right –
winning is always the best outcome.
When wining is unlikely – the odds are losing is a better choice than compromise.
All compromise makes you complicit in whatever results.
And frankly – bad compromises are much harder to get past than loses.
When you lose you retain the ability to say – This failed, now we can try something else.
When you compromise – that is many times harder.
I am unfortunately arguing above in the abstract – because YOU have made the obviously false argument that
compromise is always or usually advisable.
I have had many conflicts in my life.
I have won.
I have lost,
and sometimes I have compromised.
I do not regret any of the losses.
I am hard pressed to think of a compromise that I would not with the choice to do over again,
either risked losing or just walked away from and lost.
One of the most disturbing things about those on the left is their complete lack of understanding of morality of any kind.
Compromises involving principles – and most compromises with the left involve principles,
are never moral.
Losing is better.
Now if you wish to address SPECIFICS,
rather than this poor argument that presumes we should ALWAYS compromise,
rather than the correct – we should RARELY compromise.
We can move forward and you can try to make an argument for why in some specific conflict is a wise choice.
But that is a case you MUST make, you can not just assume it.
I would note that even in instances where there are no principles involved,
of the atleast 3 possible outcomes – compromise is still likely to the the least commonly correct choice.
“You miss the fact that compromise is a Tool, not a value or a principle.”
Why would you even think that? How can compromise be anything but a tool?
“Should we never compromise ? No.
Should we always compromise ? No!
We have covered this ground before, and you have done nothing to improve your argument.”
Compromise is known as making a deal. Despite what you think, that has always been how things are done. You do it naturally all the time but don’t know it.
“This is not about compromise – except to the extent that you appear to be claiming – without providing a basis
that compromise is always or nearly always the right choice.”
Compromise is the only way to resolve differences. It is proportional to an individual’s power and means. If I want to sell a building for $2 Million and you want to buy it at $1 Million, we either compromise or there is no deal.
“Compromise over principles is either never or almost never the right choice.”
Do not confuse principals with making a deal. Seldom are things so pure. One tries to maintain their principles as best they can, but I generally don’t advocate doing so and dying.
That is what is happening in politics. Some say I would never vote for Trump because of x,y, and z. That is how we get a Biden.
“All compromise makes you complicit in whatever results.”
I’d rather be complicit with Trump’s failings than have a Biden.
“When you lose you retain the ability to say – This failed, now we can try something else.”
In the past, you said things would become worse and then turn around. That is true, but we turn around at a lower point and, in this case, will likely not get back to the starting point even with one Trump administration. That is what the left depends on. Your type of purity helps them.
“YOU have made the obviously false argument that
compromise is always or usually advisable.”
No. I go for the win. If I can’t get the win, I compromise rather than lose. I can also walk away because I will try for another deal, but that is a compromise also.
“Compromises involving principles – and most compromises with the left involve principles,
are never moral.”
Everything involves morality, but not everything changes one’s moral compass.
“Losing is better.”
Losing is losing and involves having alternate choices. If you are afraid of compromise, you don’t understand all the elements of winning and losing.
Trump did well because, as a businessman, he understood how to win. When he wasn’t winning, he knew how to compromise. The alternative personality is a loser.
“Why would I think that ?”
Because I read your posts.
Your arguments makes no sense otherwise.
“Compromise is known as making a deal.”
Same problem again.
Compromise is SOMETIMES part of making a deal.
The absolute fundimental aspect of “deal making” is that deals do not occur unless BOTH sides walk away better off than they started.
I would suggest that what you (and often Trump) refer to as “deal making” is just the subset of free exchange where it is more difficult to
reach a win-win. When you purchase a hamburger at McD’s – that was a “deal”.
The only possible “compromise” involved was with your self – “I want a Double Big Mac, but concern for my health suggests maybe I just get a slider. ”
Regardless, read your own posts – you are trying to SELL compromise. You do not need to SELL tools – they mostly sell themselves.
Nor does choice of tools ever involve moral considerations and Rarely values.
I do not talk much about compromise. Just like I do not talk much about hammers.
You constantly interject compromise. That requires that it is more than a tool for you.
>>“Why would I think that ?”
>Because I read your posts.
Your arguments makes no sense otherwise.”
If you couldn’t understand the former, what would make you believe you understood the latter? We can observe that lack of understanding by the fact you didn’t point out where the controversy (no sense) exists and why.
>>“Compromise is known as making a deal.”
>Same problem again.
Same response. If you couldn’t understand the former, what would make you believe you understood the latter?
“The absolute fundimental aspect of “deal making” is that deals do not occur unless BOTH sides walk away better off than they started. ”
You forgot the word, perceive. Perceive they are better off.
“deal making” is just the subset of free exchange ”
Free exchange is a concept. Deal-making is what happens whether or not there is a free exchange.
“When you purchase a hamburger at McD’s – that was a “deal”.”
In this country, it is also a free exchange as I could have gone to Wendy’s.
“you are trying to SELL compromise.”
Compromise, in a way, is selling. That is how free enterprise works.
“If you couldn’t understand the former, what would make you believe you understood the latter?”
I believe I do. But that does not matter. If I do not – that is a failure to communicate on your part.
Given that none of your words or mine are complicated or have multiple meanings I do not think that is the case.
Regardless, I do not see a reason to continue this.
I have made my argument – compromise is a tool – and just because you have a tool such as a hammer, everything does not become a nail.
Separately, not only are the means of dealing with children appropriate for dealing with the left, they may be the only means of dealing with the left.
Though if you wish to argue they are worse that children – you would be correct.
They are as immature and disconnected tot he world as children.
They have the undeveloped understanding of morality of children.
But they are old enough that there are no parents that can control them.
And finally, 2 decades of infantalizing them has left them anxious and depressed.
“I believe I do. But that does not matter.”
What you believe and reality are two different roads. The failure to communicate was early on when you entered the discussion and tripped.
“Though if you wish to argue they are worse that children – you would be correct.”
No your argument of politically equating children to adults was in error. Children require authoritarian care. I don’t think that is what you wish for the rest of society.
You are fixated on a single attribute of children – one that is only nominally related to how they learn or tho this discussion.
The REASON that We subject children to authoritarian care is Specifically to protect them from lifelong harms from their own choices – that is possibly the only reason we do so.
As to young adults – I have no personal interest in subjecting them to “authoritarian care” – though they do need a bit of that.
I beleive in the past day or so several universities – Stanfrod and elsewhere just said NO to the woke mobs.
One university rejected a student government vote to require professors to put trigger warnings on everything.
The university rejected that FOR THEIR OWN GOOD – both authoritarian and what they needed.
Again one of the problems with left wing nut young adults is they still ARE children. They have physically grown up, but not emotionally.
And Stanford has announced that students who disrupted Judge Duncan will be identified to the Bar.
All that said YOUR authoritarian argument is a tangent.
Actual children are subject to authority AND protected as best as possible form the adult consequences of their choices.
That is the bargain
Young adults are NOT subject to authority and if their mistakes are bad enough – they may experience life long adult consequences.
That is how it works when your “authoritarian care” goes away.
Regardless, I am regretting raising children – because though it is an excellent analogy.
You are determined to fixate on meaningless differences.
I would finally note that young progressives WANT authoritarianism. They WANT benign dictators that protect them like children, give them everything they need.
And what they actually need is to NOT be protected and coddled. To have to fend for themselves in the real world and to deal with the consequences of their own actions.
“You are fixated on a single attribute of children –”
I am not. You brought children into a discussion as if they were the same as adults. They are not.
As I said, children require authoritarian care. That is not the way to rule adults.
“All that said YOUR authoritarian argument is a tangent.”
No. I answered one question directly, which, like here, is followed by things I find interesting and might agree with. Unfortunately, those things do not move in a forward direction.
“Regardless, I am regretting raising children – because though it is an excellent analogy.
You are determined to fixate on meaningless differences.”
It was a bad analogy at the time. Children require authoritarian care, while adults should live in a free society.
“I would finally note that young progressives WANT authoritarianism.”
We agree, and we agree, they are children.
SM – I am not interested in taking this debate further.
You are off on an irrelevant tangent
I have no interest in debating the tangent – though you have a number of errors there.
Regardless, Reality is not optional.
Absent YOUR efforts to compromise. Those on the left will either succeed or Fail.
And they will OWN that outcome.
Should by some miracle they manage to be the only statist socialist success ever
the rest of us will have to eat crown.
But that is NOT happening.
If those on the left are going to learn from their failure, they must own that failure.
I doubt there is any part of the above that you actually disagree with.
“SM – I am not interested in taking this debate further. You are off on an irrelevant tangent”
The tangent is yours and irrelevant. If you wish to give it away, give it to charity. Maybe you can get a tax deduction.
“Absent YOUR efforts to compromise. Those on the left will either succeed or Fail. And they will OWN that outcome.”
I’m the one who chose to fight. I voted for Trump, someone that fights. You voted for someone who could not win or fight.
“If those on the left are going to learn from their failure, they must own that failure.”
Trump made the left pay, not enough, because the support for those wishing to follow Trump was shallow at the time, as was yours.
“You forgot the word, perceive. Perceive they are better off.”
Correct, but you ignore the fact that in free exchange that perception is typically reality.
No one has been lied to – despite the fact that the left constantly seeks to argue that free exchange is some coercive system in which the powerful exploit the weak.
When you buy a burger, you ARE better off – because you wanted a burger more than a dollar. McD’s IS better off – because it wanted the dollar more than the burger.
That is SUBJECTIVE – the Burger is worth more TO YOU, the dollars is worth more TO McD’s.
But it is NOT merely a perception. It is an actual fact that both are better off.
McD’s CAN produce burgers for less than you paid for them – so they are better off, and the world is better off.
It is also not likely that you can produce burgers for less than you paid McD’s – or you would have.
So AGAIN both of you are ACTUALLY better off.
The FACT that it is nearly always more than just perception is critical.
What it means is that value was CREATED
Without created value – everything is zero sum and standard of living can not rise.
Given that we are better off than cave men – that means Free exchange must increase ACTUAL value.
So you are correct that free exchange requires the perceptiont hat you are better off.
But if it is not also true that in most instances you are ACTUALLY better off – stanard of living would not rise and people would ultimately cease free exchange.
“Correct, but you ignore the fact that in free exchange that perception is typically reality.”
I don’t know if that is true, and it would depend on carefully assessing what you are talking about.
“But it is NOT merely a perception. It is an actual fact that both are better off.”
Again, you are making a statement that requires assessing what you are discussing.
The person buying the McDonald’s hamburger perceives it as a good deal. Does he have the same perception after his heart attack? I think you have led us into a discussion that goes far afield and goes nowhere.
“I don’t know if that is true, and it would depend on carefully assessing what you are talking about.”
Please reread my ENTIRE comment.
Free exchange is about PERCEIVED VALUE.
“Value is subjective” PERIOD.
Free markets REQUIRE that to be true.
I do not understand why i should have to argue this with you.
This is something I would expect that you KNOW already.
“Please reread my ENTIRE comment.
Free exchange is about PERCEIVED VALUE.”
It is. I read your entire argument. It is your fault that you are not concise and limited. That is why I said, “it would depend on carefully assessing what you are talking about.”
“Value is subjective” PERIOD.”
You say that as if we disagree. There is no disagreement. The problem is with the way you formulate your argument. It is neither concise nor limited.
“I do not understand why i should have to argue this with you.”
You are trying to blame your problem on someone else. When you recognize this, you will stop complaining.
“This is something I would expect that you KNOW already.”
I already know. You are just learning.
“You say that as if we disagree. There is no disagreement. The problem is with the way you formulate your argument. It is neither concise nor limited.”
That is correct. Value is subjective PERIOD. That is deliberately broad and unlimited.
Each of us as INDIVIDUALS are free to impose our own criteria and limits on our determination of Value.
And there are excellent reasons AS INDIVIDUALS for doing so.
But there is absolutely no universal constraints on the subjectivity of value.
Only those you self impose.
YOU decide the value of a hamburger to you at a given instance by your own criteria whatever they are.
To be clear – we – especially producers go to extreme lengths to try to understand YOUR criteria so that we can better produce what YOU value.
But the desire to understand even to look for common patterns and themes in an individual or groups assessment of value does not alter the FACT hat
the determination of value, and the criteria for that determination are entirely subjective.
“YOU decide the value of a hamburger …”
Thank you for providing the blog with a free lesson on free-market capitalism.
You are the one leading the argument astray.
Value is subjective. That is a requirement for free exchange to work.
Absolutely for many reasons people change their assessment of value.
That is captured perfectly by “value is subjective”.
The fact that circumstances or values change over time does not alter the FACT that free exchange occurs because of the subjective values of each articipant at the moment of exchange.
Having a heart attack later – does not change your values in the moment of the exchange.
We are addressing something very basic
That is a common result when YOU miss an underlying principle.
We have not gone astray. We have merely been forced to address an underlying principle of economics and free markets – one that I beleive you accept,
But failed to recognize applies.
“You are the one leading the argument astray.”
No. You are the one expanding the argument.
“Value is subjective.”
There is no disagreement with that. You are the one who keeps forgetting or adding value judgments which leads the argument astray.
“Having a heart attack later – does not change your values in the moment of the exchange.”
Here, you are expanding the argument’s scope. If you ask for an example, expect one. Sometimes you think narrowly demonstrated by the answer to your request for an example, which widens the discussion.
“We are addressing something very basic
That is a common result when YOU miss an underlying principle.”
Statements like this are confusing and lead arguments astray.
“something very basic”
What is that something?
“YOU miss an underlying principle.”
What principle? I answered, but you wished to inject a principle into the discussion without setting the stage for it. Blame yourself.
“We have not gone astray. We have merely been forced to address an underlying principle of economics and free markets – one that I beleive you accept,”
You are creating the argument. You neither stated the principle nor where I failed to recognize it. You don’t like my answer consistent with my principles. Perhaps that is because your principle is inconsistent with the discussion.
“Free exchange is a concept. Deal-making is what happens whether or not there is a free exchange.”
Can you provide an example of deal making that is not free exchange – outside of coercive systems such as socialism ?
Your wallet or your life
Coercive
“Coeercive”
Yes, it is. You asked for an example and I gave it. “Your wallet or your life”
“In this country, it is also a free exchange as I could have gone to Wendy’s.”
Or you could walk away. It does not matter what other options you have, only that you have at the least the option of walking away.
This is actually quite important. There is over a century of economic study of “monopolies” that has demonstrated that absent govenrment,
even a sustained monopoly (which is very rare), is still subject to free market forces.
People can walk away, and the monopoly itself can not increase prices much beyond those in a competitive market – or a competitor will arise naturally.
Again there is massive data on this.
Are you aware that the breakup of standard oil actually resulted in price INCREASES ? Fairly significant ones.
Without govenrment interfering even a monopoly is forced to keep prices close to those of that competition that does not even exist would have sold at,
because if it does not – that competition will come to exist.
All back to risk/return. Any investment with low risk and high return will draw investors.
“Or you could walk away.”
I think I discussed that in my earlier discussion. That is part of deal-making. Sometimes one has to walk away.
If you agree , why did you challenge ?
One uses compromise to resolve differences. That doesn’t stop one from walking away.
“Compromise is the only way to resolve differences.”
So wrong, and so obviously way beyond compromise is a tool.
There is a whole series of books called “love and logic” that is about an approach to raising children to be capable adults.
Compromise is barely addressed even as a tool. Yet almost the entirety of raising a child is about conflict – resolving differences.
The most common approach in L&L is find a way to allow the child to do what they want – SAFELY, and then learn from the consequences.
Those on the left today are Spoiled children. It is nearly impossible to compromise with them. Further doing so makes you complicit in the harm they cause.
Where possible it is far more effective to allow them to FAIL – so long as the harm to everyone else can be mitigated.
One of the most common problems we have with broad learning in politics is that the worst consequences of poor political choices are usually significantly divorced in time from the choices. Social Security was a bad choice – it is a classic ponzi scheme. And Ponzi Schemes never fail right away. In fact early participants make out incredibly well. Medicare is a similar disaster – it has failed more quickly, But still has taken generations.
The mistakes of the FED, and Clinton and Bush administrations took a decade to reach failure.
But more recently we have been fortunate. Trump’s policy changes from Obama were small. But the benefits were very near immediate.
Conversely Biden inherited a bright future – all he had to do was coast.
Biden’s failures and Trump’s successes were sufficiently immediate that the connection is firm in people minds.
Real learning is possible.
Compromise would have been a mistake.
One of the most effective ways to “resolve differences” is to allow others to do as they wish AND FAIL.
Frankly, that is likely the only means for todays poorly educated adult toddlers to learn.
And unfortunately the COST of adult failure is much greater than for children.
BTW allowing one side to fail is just ONE of many other possible approaches to resolving conflict that do not involve “compromise”.
>>” Compromise is the only way to resolve differences.”
>So wrong, and so obviously way beyond compromise is a tool.”
OK, John, scrap the Constitution. It is a creation of a compromise. Is that what you want?
Your second error is using children as an example of why a compromise is unacceptable. Children are born into a dictatorship for a good reason. Dictatorships don’t require a compromise, but even in dictatorships, it exists.
Do not equate a community of children with a community of adults.
There are SOME compromises in the constitution.
The constitution itself is NOT a compromise from one end to the other.
Further with few exceptions it is NOT about Principles – that would be in the Declaration.
“There are SOME compromises in the constitution.”
Correct.
“The constitution itself is NOT a compromise from one end to the other.”
True. However, to get the Constitution passed, compromises were necessary.
“Further with few exceptions it is NOT about Principles – that would be in the Declaration.”
That comment strays from the discussion.
Children are a near perfect model for today.
Our fundimental political problem today is young adults that still behave like Children.
I would further note that the Love and Logic example I provided. Works perfectly with adults.
The ONLY difference is that the role of patents is to allow children to learn from their mistakes while still protecting them from mistakes with lifelong consequences.
Young adults and adults learn the same way – Except no one is their to protect them from life altering consequences if they make big enough mistakes.
We learn through the study of history, through the use of logic OR through the consequences of mistakes.
That is true of every age.
The only difference with children is that they hopefully have parents who will protect them from mistakes that have lifelong consequences.
“Children are a near perfect model for today. ”
Not for our discussion. Children are raised in an authoritarian environment. Is that what you are looking for?
“Our fundimental political problem today is young adults that still behave like Children. ”
Do you want an authoritarian government to correct the problem?
“I would further note that the Love and Logic example I provided. Works perfectly with adults.”
It can, but that is not what is under discussion.
“Not for our discussion.”
Incorrect.
“Children are raised in an authoritarian environment. Is that what you are looking for?”
That is literally what young progressives ARE looking for.
Further the approach I offered was ANTI-authoritarian – even for Children.
While I refered to something older than “free range child rearing”.
The core is the same. Truly authoritarian child rearing produces emotional and intellectual cripples.
Pretty much what we have.
You improve child rearing and get better adults by giving kids sufficient freedom to try things – and succeed or more often fail.
Without the consequences being lifelong.
Put differently child rearing is a combination of anarchy and authoritarianism.
Sufficient authoritarianism to keep children from killing themselves, and
sufficient anarchy – freedom to learn.
And a version of that may be the best we can manage with young progressives.
It is much harder – to protect young adults from life long consequences of poor choices.
That would require a degree of authoritarianism that is not possible or desireable.
So they must be allowed to fail.
I would note that is also the premise of the child rearing approach I am discussing.
Better to allow kids to make and learn from mistakes when you CAN protect them from lifelong consequences.
Because the mistakes WILL ultimately occur.
My objective – to the extent possible is to limit the consequences of the bad decisions of those on the left to those on the left.
F#$K up your own cities communities etc.
You get to tell the rest of us how to live – when you have actually succeeded yourself.
““I would further note that the Love and Logic example I provided. Works perfectly with adults.”
It can, but that is not what is under discussion.”
Of course it is.
You want to compromise.
When you do those you compromised learn that they can throw a tantrum and get some of what they want.
And approach that will incrementally get them everything they want.
And worse still – you become complicit – so they can deny responsibility when things fail.
I am saying – it is often – nearly always better to NOT compromise – either win – and improve things, or lose, and
everyone can learn from failure.
>>“Not for our discussion.”
>Incorrect.
John, the problem with discussing my quote is you typed it wrong. The actual quote was:
” but that is not what is under discussion.”
I was trying to stay within the bounds of the discussion to keep things clear. “Our discussion” is OK as long as we both know it. but is different that the topic under discussion.
“Further the approach I offered was ANTI-authoritarian – even for Children.”
No. What you did was make a false comparison, and I corrected it. Children are different from adults.
“When you do those you compromised learn that they can throw a tantrum and get some of what they want.”
That is not true if one understands the process of compromise. One needs two entities having divergent opinions where both desire a settlement. If they do not have the required desire or ability, there is no compromise.
I often compromise in business. Almost always, there is some leeway to make compromise work. I did that with my children that may have lessened today’s penalty but not tomorrow’s. A good compromise is not blind to circumstances.
In negotiation you must know exactly what you want. There are almost always tangential things that can be negotiated. My advantage has always been that I knew exactly where I stood and my counterpart didn’t. One has to choose the time to pick an argument and sometimes that is with something unimportant. It tells your counterpart that if he pursues a certain track the deal has ended and if it doesn’t, it tells you how to proceed while cutting a lot of discussion.
Children are different from adults – correct.
Also not relevant.
First – aside fromt eh fact that we are mostly better at learning when we are younger. the process, and specifically learning through failure is fundimentally the same regardless of age.
Second, the emotional maturity of most of today’s 20 somethings is little different from toddlers.
Third – even ignoring the fact that progressive young adults are more childish than ever.
Maturity is a process, it is not binary. Some aspects of development do not complete until 35.
“Children are different from adults – correct.
Also not relevant.”
But, John, you wrongfully added children to the discussion. What you did wrong was clearly explained.
The reason you wish to deny your fault is something only you can answer, but I note whenever you make a mistake, you take the offensive and try to blame the other.
“First – aside fromt eh fact that we are mostly better at learning when we are younger. the … Second … Third … ”
That is why I explained to you children require authoritarian care, something not desirable for adults.
I responded once already but I am going to close the door on this “children are different” argument of yours.
While correct, as noted it is also irrelevant. The learning process I described is NOT limited to children.
We do not stop learning from failure at 18.
Unless you are prepared to assert and defend that after 18 people do NOT learn from failure,
I have no further interest in your “children are different” argument.
Because in this domain they are not.
“I responded once already but I am going to close the door on this “children are different” argument of yours.”
Good, because you were wrong to use children as an example. They require authoritarian care.
“The learning process I described is NOT limited to children.”
The learning process can be the same for children and adults, but it is not desirable to rule over adults in an authoritarian fashion.
“We do not stop learning from failure at 18.”
No one disagrees.
“Unless you are prepared to assert and defend that after 18 people do NOT learn from failure,”
Are you setting bait? The statement was unnecessary unless you have doubts about what you said.
“I have no further interest in your “children are different” argument.”
It was your wayward argument that caused countless responses. I hope you recognize how to prevent them in the future.
I was not wrong to use Children as an example.
You were wrong to go off on a tangent.
BTW I did not actually use Children as an example.
I used the most common method by which Children (and adults) Learn.
This entire thread with you is chock full of examples where you go off on a tangent.
If I used the way Cars transfer force to the road as an example – I expect that you will want to debate windshield wipers or upholstery.
The points I am making are very SIMPLE. Your tangents are real mostly but not relevant.
You can learn by logic, you can learn from history, or you can learn from failure.
Please read your own remarks on compromise. You have made my case, in two ways.
First you claim that it is a process where there are rules. But it is not. Most everything you pretend is a binary is not.
And second, we are dealing with people who have neither the desire nor the ability to compromise.
Further there is no moral requirement to desire compromise.
I do not fault the left for being uncompromising – that is a legitimate choice.
I fault them for being wrong.
You keep trying to convert compromise from a tool to a principle.
You do not appear to beleive that is what you are doing.
But it self evidently is.
You have given it weight it can not bear.
“Please read your own remarks on compromise. You have made my case, in two ways. First you claim that it is a process where there are rules. But it is not. Most everything you pretend is a binary is not.”
Where did I claim compromise has “rules”? That doesn’t even pass the smell test.
“And second, we are dealing with people who have neither the desire nor the ability to compromise.”
Again, you are making something up. I did not specify “people”, though it is fine if you wish to do so. You bounce back and forth too much, from children to adults, to progressives, and wherever you want.
Blame yourself if the questions answered do not pertain to the person you had in mind at the time. It is not up to me to decide which one of the many arguments provided by you, you are talking about.
“You keep trying to convert compromise from a tool to a principle.”
That is wrong. Stop trying to rectify your lack of preciseness by blaming others. I have already proven that I believe compromise to be a tool, not a principle. Blame yourself.
I am not debating you further on this.
I have made several points:
The left can Succeed or Fail. I have no interest in compromising with them – though apparently you do.
I am not in control of that. Nor are you. But my argument will be AGAINST compromise.
You can not compromise principles.
You can not compromise with people you do not trust.
And you should not compromise when it makes you complicit in the failure that is inevitable.
If the left succeeds – which has ZERO likelyhood. We are stuck with progressive socialism.
Do you really want to debate the possibility of the left actually succeeding ?
If they fail – they will either learn from their mistakes – as most people – including children learn from failure.
Or they will not. Regardless, failure will with near certainty reduce their power.
I am not interested in your hypothetical worlds – in the real world – this ISSUE at hand is how to deal with the left.
Not do I compromise with a tenant that is behind on their rent.
In that real world in the REAL matter of the left – there is no rational reason to consider compromise.
And no reason to debate the merits of compromise with you further.
If you do not beleive those on the left (as well as many in the middle) will learn from the failure of the left.
Then we are screwed. And we would be screwed as bad or worse if you compromised.
I keep telling you that your arguments are both wrong and irrelevant.
And then you go off on more irrlevant discussions of compromise and children.
Your wrong in those debates – but they are irrelevant, so I am not going to continue.
Nor am I interested in continuing the Value is subjective debate.
It is both a tautology – and a fundamental principle of classical economics.
I am not interested in your personal attempts to develop objective criteria to decide Value for yourself.
We all do that. But there is no single right way to do so. Therefore VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE.
Without subjective value rising standard of living is impossible, free exchange is impossible, because win-win exchanges are not possible.
“I am not debating you further on this.”
I have no control over what you do or don’t do. Nor do I request anything. It is up to you to do as you will. You need not say anything.
“The left can Succeed or Fail. I have no interest in compromising with them – though apparently you do.”
I don’t compromise with the left except if there is an advantage in doing so. I voted for Trump as a leader I felt would fight and not throw in the towel.
In the past, you objected to the compromise made by Trump when securing the funding needed for our military. That permitted him to excel in foreign policy and maintain our freedoms. You are free to advocate no compromise.
“in the real world – this ISSUE at hand is how to deal with the left.”
The real world fills itself with two-edged swords. If you believe otherwise, you are free to do so.
“Not do I compromise with a tenant that is behind on their rent.”
Yet, you state sometimes you let them off the hook. That is compromise. I similarly owned rental properties for decades in a completely different area. I compromised with many to meet my self-imposed bottom line. Once one permits deviation from the contract, they are compromising.
“I keep telling you that your arguments are both wrong and irrelevant.”
But to date, you haven’t come up with anything but theory. Up to a point, that is acceptable. But, once reached, one has to think on their feet, or be buried. That is why academics can shine in academia but fail in the real world.
” irrlevant discussions of compromise and children.”
In the rest of your response, you make many left-handed inaccurate attacks. They do not show you in your best light. I will skip the rest of your slanted and self-serving recapitulation of what was said, letting people refer to the written discussion above.
John, below is the location of much of our discussion spanning many days. In that lengthy discussion, you introduced many tangents and a few too many accusatory comments. That debating practice leads to misunderstandings magnified by our use of text in a blog over many days. Do not fret because I accept it as a free flow of information where you are a valuable asset.
One of the main subjects, if not the main subject in the discussion, was compromising. We each have our particular views, but I don’t think they significantly differ except in how each defines the words used. (That is why I believe definitions are so important.)
Mentioned in the discussion was that the Constitution was a compromise between states, as are our votes for office holders. When I vote, I have a specific ideology in mind, and I had to compromise when I voted for Trump because the alternative was worse. I was lucky because he turned out a lot better than I thought.
You kept dissing the idea of compromise, while I feel that is how the world turns. That does not mean one gives up on principles. The dialogue should give you an idea of what I mean by compromise.
Our problems, I think, boil down to theory vs. practicality which frequently involves compromise. That is where we get into head-bashing. In this discussion, you sided more with the theory /principle behind the action, and I with a more pragmatic response. I’ll take the half-loaf when the alternative is no loaf (pragmatism). I will not kill for it (principle: Thou shalt not murder).
Children entered into the idea of compromise early in the game. We do not differ regarding the ideas taken from the book you mentioned. We let children fail to protect them from harm in the future. Sometimes we use compromise for excellent reasons, probably significantly more than you surmise.
We were talking about these things on a nationwide level when you responded with,
“Children are a near perfect model for today. ”
To which I said:
Not for our discussion. Children are raised in an authoritarian environment. Is that what you are looking for?
You also said, “Our fundamental political problem today is young adults that still behave like Children. ”
To which I responded:
Do you want an authoritarian government to correct the problem?
Your statement: “I would further note that the Love and Logic example I provided. Works perfectly with adults.”
My response:
It can, but that is not what is under discussion.
Later this led to my comment:
“OK, John, scrap the Constitution. It is a creation of a compromise. Is that what you want?
Your second error is using children as an example of why a compromise is unacceptable. Children are born into a dictatorship for a good reason. Dictatorships don’t require a compromise, but even in dictatorships, it exists.
Do not equate a community of children with a community of adults.”
Were we talking cross-purposes? Your comments didn’t help. I agreed with your treatment of children, but because parents raise children in an authoritarian fashion, is not what I am looking for as a political solution for our nation.
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/27/could-trump-win-by-losing-sometimes-nothing-is-a-real-cool-hand/comment-page-3/#comment-2275504
SM,
I have said what I needed to say.
Your not listening,
and your not communicating.
Repeating the same facts is not going to change anything.
I try to be more polite when I tell you that you are wrong – because you are more honest and intelligent that Svelaz or Gigi.
But that does not change the fact that you are wrong.
I am not going to sugar coat that.
I do not expect you to sugar coat your arguments.
But I expect them to be better. Often they are.
But you remain stubornly fixated on compromise.
You pay lips service to its being a tool not a principle,
but you constantly contradict that.
You also substantially exagerate its importance.
As well as failing to understand that there are preconditions for compromise.
It is nearly impossible to compromise when there is no trust.
It is irrelevant whether you want to.
It is irrelevant wheter compromise is a good choice.
Without Trust – compromise is really just complicity in your own capitulation.
I have been over this meany times.
You do not get it.
Maybe I have failed to communicate to you.
But I have not failed in my understanding.
So I am done with this.
let go. Move on. You are not going to persuade me – you are not even close.
And I am done trying to persuade you.
“I have said what I needed to say.
Your not listening,
and your not communicating.
Repeating the same facts is not going to change anything.”
John, the above arguments are weak and more of a deflection.
“I try to be more polite when I tell you that you are wrong – because you are more honest and intelligent than Svelaz or Gigi.
But that does not change the fact that you are wrong.”
I thank you for being more polite as I am toward you out of respect that others do not deserve.
But saying something or someone is wrong is not an argument, especially when the quotes above prove differently.
“But I expect them to be better. Often they are.”
Based on what you saw, they might be better, but they are better than yours. Your reliance on pat phrases proves you are failing to make your case.
“But you remain stubornly fixated on compromise.
You pay lips service to its being a tool not a principle,”
A compromise is a tool, not a principle, and proven in my responses.
“but you constantly contradict that.
You also substantially exagerate its importance.”
If I constantly contradict, you can demonstrate where I did that. If I exaggerate, you can do the same. The words are above in black and white, waiting for you to make your case.
“It is nearly impossible to compromise when there is no trust.”
I trust no one. I depend on a contract.
“You are not going to persuade me – you are not even close.”
I cannot persuade you. I can only make you run out of arguments. 🙂
“Do not equate a community of children with a community of adults.”
There are no adults on the left today.
“Do not equate a community of children with a community of adults.”
There are no adults on the left today.”
They must know their problem because they are looking for an authoritarian government.
“They must know their problem because they are looking for an authoritarian government.”
Absolutely.
The only problem with the comparison of the left to children is that children are mostly only dangerous to themselves.
But absolutely the left seeks totalitarianism – because they are exactly what you get when you do not allow children the freedom to fail on their own.
Anxious depressed 20 something toddlers demanding protection from everything from some authoritarian parent figure.
Concurrently anarchistic and totalitarian.
They must be allowed to have 20 million genders and be protected by force from anyone who would challenge that.
But fail to use the right type of bag in a grocery store and you are subject to capital punishment.
This is also why the cultural revolution analogy works.
The cultural revolution occurred because Mao gave children power over adults.
Nobody in the world knew that these Globalist’s were so evil…that they would actually murder people.. Trump’s not a doctor either…so he hired what we were told the BEST medical advisors in the world… like the rest of us…..Not knowing this was a PLANNED and most evil Plandemic ever against Humanity… I don’t blame President Trump for any of this… he was doing what medical experts told him to do…or many millions would die… Now we know how evil our Government has truly become…and GODLESS….
The claim that Trump flubbed Covid has the underlying assumption that a better outcome was possible.
What evidence do you have of that ?
I am hard pressed to think of a single public policy that had a demonstrable beneficial effect.
Do I need to list all the policies that we now KNOW do not work ? Do I have to list the proof that the government “experts” KNEW they were nonsense at the time ?
Any claim that Trump failed regarding Covid – or many other claims of Trump failure rest on his failure to kow tow and viture signal as you wish.
Throughout the world, Covid deaths are entirely explained by Demographics and geography.
To the extent that any country can claim to have done better through government action than any other, that would be Sweden – that did nothing.
You claim Trump flubbed Covid – Who did Better ?
The answer is trivial NO ONE.
Biden ran on YOUR claim that Trump was a failure, yet he has had over 3 times as many Covid deaths as Trump.
Buy the standards Biden subjected himself and Trump to during the election he MUST resign.
Desantis did better. He refused to shutdown, protected the vulnerable in nursing homes and care centers, and didn’t close schools or force mask wearing. Trump’s judgment has been atrocious in many areas (Comey, Kushner, Fauci, tweet storms on trivial matters such as directed towards celebrities, etc.). Not to demean many of his great accomplishments. Desantis has proven he can deliver and stands up to the media/government complex. It’s time to move on from Trump and his pettiness
DeSantis did better in some areas, but not all.
Trump did incredibly well in Foreign Policy against all odds.
DeSantis might but we have no basis to judge.
I am quite happy with the work Kushner did in the mideast.
It should be noted by the Ferocity of the Attacks on Trump that the left is determined to impose their will on all by any means necescary.
While DeSantis has handled a hostile media well thus far – he has not come close to enduring the relentless attacks that Trump has.
Whoever is the future Republican candidate with absolute certainty will be painted exactly as Trump is being painted.
DeSantis has also not experienced the relentless war with the deep state that Trump has.
Should he be elected it is near Certain Trump will remedy the one major failure of his first term – and reprise his signature line from the Aprentice
“Your Fired”
This country needs a massive house cleaning of the federal govenrment. No one is more likely to do that in 2025 than Trump.
DeSantis may make an excellent President someday.
That day is not 2025.
Both Trump and DeSantis should ratchet down the personal attacks.
DeSantis’s only shot in 2024 – without damaging the Republican party is to wait in the wings in the event that Trump is somehow actually mortally wounded.
Republicans are blessed at the moment that they have “an heir and a spare” – and frankly a deep bench beyond Trump and DeSantis.
The reason that Democrats do not drop Biden now is that they have no one else.
The 2016 primary cycle that Trump won, featured almost a dozen excellent candidates – most of whom are still potential contenders for a long time to come – as well as DeSantis and a few other newcomers.
One cannot judge Trump on the basis of Covid. He didn’t do the best job, but I saw no one except DeSantis that could have done a better job. Had he been given more Republican support, I think he could have done better. The rest of his administrative duties demonstrated a more skilled understanding of policy.
Turley still doesn’t get it.
He still thinks this is your grandfather’s United States of America and that everyone’s playing by the rules wake up man the more I hear from you the more I’m tuning you out you’re just a voice from an old bygone era
Here is what gets me, we have a VERY INTELELIGENT man in Mr. Turley PRETENDING these clowns didn’t steal the Election. Psstt, Mr. Turley, with that THEFT being allowed to stand, we are officially a Banana Republic, to STOP THAT you should have been leading the band showing how they are stealing Elections. Instead, you dithered, nothing else matters anymore sir. We are finished as a Nation, PERIOD.
I have to agree with you. The rage Mr. Turley sees is on the left. This article is not his best work.
Despite the video evidence of ballot box dumping, never counted shredded ballots at the Atlanta landfill?
Many people cannot admit that they are going to vote for Trump out of fear that their liberal friends and family may kill them. No one expected Trump to win in 2016, the odds against him were huge, but the people went out and got rid of the Kenyan.
There is no such thing as a liberal friend.
Rod, I have a number of liberal friends and their spouses are conservative. One is a devout follower of Rachael Meadow yet otherwise is quite intelligent. We sometimes talk politics, but when Madow’s facts are brought up all I do is Google and show the truth based on the quotes and context.
Facts do not change the opinions held by many Democrats.
NO He got rid of the HAG
That is a nonsensical post. Obama had already served 8 years and couldn’t serve anymore. Trump didn’t get rid of him, he got fid of Hillary.
Latest poll: 61% do not want Trump to be President again. And he will not “win by losing.”
It may be that “Trump is in his element” in the sense that he’s “the most enraged man,” but we are not “the land of rage,” and he is not “king.” Some people are rage-filled. Many other people are not. We should all hope that those of us who aren’t can keep the country functioning, even though Trump regularly feeds the rage of some, including his own.
“Latest poll: 61% do not want Trump to be President “
Learn statistics. If five candidates are running and the population is evenly distributed, 80% would want a different candidate than any one of the five mentioned. Selection and word choice are a key to what answer one will get.
When accusing Trump of rage, tell us which buildings he burned down and which people he killed. None. Then look at your peaceful rioters from the left who burned cities while killing people.
You are a sad example of a poster who can’t get things right.
Here hear.
“…keep the country functioning…” Where do you see a functioning country? Since the 2020 election was stolen and the nation was placed in the hands of a nasty, unprincipled, lying, demented puppet of Obama and the Red Chinese, we have erased our borders, destroyed our energy supply, spent and borrowed the economy into bankruptcy, unleashed a crime wave across what remains of our country, and eliminated the Bill of Rights. Do I sound enraged? Pretty close and justifiably so.
61% of those who were polled; depends on who was polled and what and how questions were asked. Look at the many thousands of people still attending his rallies vs. the hundreds at Biden/Harris events. Absolutely no way they got more legitimate votes than Obama; no way.
Latest poll? Have you seen Biden’s numbers lately? He is Jimmy Carter now and it will only get worse if he can’t keep BS’ing Congress about his business deals with the Chinese. Trump doesn’t feed the rage. He is responding to the corrupt media and the un-American Marxists in the Democrat Party. If anyone has a right to be angry at the system, Trump does. Hillary and the FBI tried to overthrow him with a phony dossier. In fact, the clowns in the media who falsely accused him, still got Pulitzer Prizes. Trump doesn’t choose the rage. He is merely the only guy in the country who has the guts to stand up to corruption in this country
I think professor Turley’s comment about Trump bringing out the worst in people is important. People on both sides seem to have this idea that none of this bad stuff was there until Trump came and somehow created it, but that’s not true. Trump is a human catalyst bringing that which is under the surface to the fore. All of this filth and corruption and craziness, it was there for who knows how long. I mean we basically know at this point that the CIA offed JFK. Which means things haven’t been as they seemed for a long, long time. I wish that people could appreciate that about Trump without demonizing or deifying him. He has brought a lot to the surface that is not ok and that needs to be addressed and rooted out. And he is still doing it. The Bragg prosecution is just the latest example. People like me are neither shocked nor surprised but I think genuinely well-meaning leftists like Turley were and are still clinging desperately to what they believe is their claim to the moral highground. And they are gradually figuring out that what they believed to be the highground is actually a rubbish heap. And yet they cling on. Meanwhile, traditional Republicans think if we can just get rid of Trump everything will be ok again, but it won’t be ok until we fix it. And we can’t fix it until it’s exposed. Which is what I believe Trump’s appointed role has been and still is.
Trump just provided a platform for the American people that still were sober enough, informed enough and and intelligent enough to understand what a Constitutional Republic is versus what mob rule means. Face it, America is lost for now and she will not be recovered by voting.
“Constitutional Republic is versus what mob rule means”
mob rule or Mob rule? Or both.
If the police routinely handed out speeding tickets for driving 78 mph in a 70 mph zone, that could be viewed as a proper thing to do. I mean, they’re guilty, right? But what if, hypothetically, it were discovered that people leaving GOP events were getting tickets but not people leaving Democrat events? This is the core issue regarding cops and prosecutors for all sorts of infractions in today’s America.